“Today,” tweeted California Yimby staffer Louis Mirante on September 28, the Gov signed 3 Ca YIMBY-sponsored bills. That’s more than any other housing organization successfully sponsored this year.” Newsom also signed twelve other housing bills. In 2019, he signed a “housing package” of 18 bills. In 2017 and 2018, Jerry Brown signed a total of 31 housing bills into law, including draconian measures such as Wiener’s SB 35 and SB 828, and Nancy Skinner’s SB 330 and SB 167. That adds up to 64 new housing laws in four years.

To justify this legislative onslaught and the rollback of the California Environmental Quality Act and local say in land use that it authorizes, its proponents claim that California has a gigantic housing shortage.

In late September, that claim took a hit. The Palo Alto-based Embarcadero Institute released a critique of the state’s Regional Housing Need Allocations (RHNAs), the amount of housing that each region must permit, divvied up among the region’s cities. Embarcadero showed that “as an unintended consequence of Senate Bill 828,” the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) had used “an incorrect vacancy rate and double counting.” The result: 900,000 excess housing units allocated in SoCal, the Bay Area, and the Sacramento region. HCD’s “[e]xaggerated targets…encourage market-rate housing development at the expense of affordable housing,” where the real housing crisis lies. 

The Embarcadero study, wrote Dan Walters, “clearly sets the stage for a legal and political showdown on how far the state can go in forcing reluctant local officials to generate more housing construction than they want.” 

It’s already sparked a Twitter storm of dismissive comments from Mirante, UC Davis Law Professor Chris Elmendorf, UCLA Professor of Urban Planning and Public Policy Paavo Monkkonen, and Palo Alto Mayor Adrian Fine. On September 30, Embarcadero analyst Gab Layton responded. 

The 3.5 million homes hype 

Last December, Walters wrote about another Embarcadero exposé of housing shortage hype—the assertion that California needs 3.5 million new housing units by 2025. Gavin Newsom ran for governor on that claim. The figure came from a 2016 report published by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), “A Tool Kit to Close California’s Housing Gap.” Embarcadero zeroed in on the flawed methodology underlying the 3.5 million goal: MGI compared California’s housing needs to New York’s, “but California is not New York.” Moreover, McKinsey was calculating housing per capita—as if each person needs a separate residence. “[I]n any universe,” Embarcadero reported, “3.5 million is an outlier.” HCD’s model “suggests the additional housing needed by 2025 is around 1.1 million” For another critique of McKinsey’s methodology, albeit one that doesn’t treat affordability, see this 2017 brief by a team of USC demographers. 

In a column published on September 29, Walters offered Newsom’s “flat campaign declaration that he would solve California’s chronic housing shortage by building 3.5 million new homes” as “[t]he classic example” of the Governor’s “fondness for headline-grabbing pronouncements of ‘big hairy, audacious goals.’” The declared housing goal “was impossible,” Walters wrote, “…and after his election, “Newsom backed off, calling it an ‘aspirational’ goal. Actually, housing production has declined during his governorship.” 

At a press conference last January, a reporter asked the Governor how close he was going to get to “realizing” the 3.5 million target. Newsom replied: “That was established by a report McKinsey put out. I said at the time [during his gubernatorial campaign] that it was an audacious stretch.” He then referred to the future announcement of a “new statewide goal broken down by regions.” 

A new goal has yet to be published. Or maybe it includes the bloated RHNA numbers. Newsom hasn’t said. In any case, whether he’s really backed off the 3.5 million figure is unclear. 

Newsom, McKinsey, and California Forward 

Although “A Tool Kit to Close California’s Housing Gap” appeared under the McKinsey imprimatur, it was prepared in collaboration with the statewide growth lobby, California Forward. Since 2012, California Forward has partnered with the California Stewardship Network to host an annual conference, the California Economic Summit. Newsom is always on the agenda. 

In November 2016, Justin Ewers wrote on the Summit website: 

“With the assistance of the California Economic Summit network, McKinsey spent this summer identifying 15 levers that could allow California communities to close the affordability gap. In its final report, McKinsey highlights how these changes could produce as many as five million new units in the next several decades, many of them in ‘housing hot spots’ where, as the report puts it, ‘large numbers of housing units could be built with attractive returns.’ 

McKinsey’s ideas will be featured at the next Summit on December 13-14 in Sacramento, and the Summit is also working to ensure their analysis is included in state policy conversations in the coming year.” 

Four years later, the Summit is still flogging McKinsey’s estimate, but you have to dig to find it. The 2020 conference will take place online on December 3-4. Attendees will consider a “2020 Roadmap to Shared Prosperity.” As described on the Summit website, the Roadmap “combines the best thinking and strategies from across the state and details priorities for 2020 and solutions that can help more Californians gain access to their California Dream.” 

One of the seven “building blocks of the California Dream” is “Housing, Mobility, and Connectivity.” Under that heading, scroll down to “Priority Actions for 2020,” and click on “CAECONOMY.ORG/WHERETOBUILD.” Up comes a list of presentations from the 2019 Summit. The top entry is a lengthy report that California Forward commissioned from an Oakland consultancy, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), to answer the question: “’Is there enough available land in urban-served areas to meet the governor’s goal of 3.5 million units by 2025?’” The report’s answer: No. 

Don’t think, however, that California Forward has abandoned the governor’s goal. Backed up by the EPS paper, the organization is sticking to the discredited number but revising the terms of its achievement. It now contends that policymakers “need to encourage housing developments in other existing areas—such as ‘skipped over’ vacant lots, abandoned malls and underutilized commercial and industrial land.” In other words, the push for transit-oriented development was just a ploy. Growth was always the end game. California Forward also argues that “a longer time frame is in order, perhaps as long as 2050.” 

The EPS paper ignores the objections to McKinsey’s methodology raised by the Embarcadero Institute and the USC demographers. In support of its own claims, it cites 

· the McKinsey-California Forward Tool Kit 

· Newsom’s campaign piece in Medium calling for 3.5 million new homes 

· a “policy brief” written by Monkkonen and UCLA graduate student Spike Friedman that opens by citing Newsom’s Medium piece 

· California Department of Finance population and housing estimates published in 2018 and 2019 

· EPS studies done for ABAG, the San Diego Association of Governments, and the Sacramento Association of Governments 

· a 2006 study of potential infill housing in California, written by University of Pennsylvania Professor John Landis and four others 

· a Sightline story about Seattle’s Accessory Dwelling Unit law 

· an OregonLive story about Oregon’s elimination of single-family zoning 

To reach the goal of 3.5 million homes, EPS recommends among other things further rollback of CEQA (30); the creation of “a regional housing appeals boards…that could overrule local land use decisions limiting growth or not approving projects consistent with State and regional housing production objectives” (30); and having “the State of California …adopt legislation that integrates the existing EIFD [Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District] legislation with other land assembly powers, particularly related to the use of eminent domain and disposition of disposable land” (34). 

Governor Newsom styles himself a number-cruncher. He needs to say, then, whether he’s still chasing the chimerical 3.5 million housing units. If so, why? If not, why is his name all over the EPS report commissioned by California Forward?

This is insanely cool. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse brilliantly exposes dark money in politics at the Barrett hearing. Do not miss it. 

 

 

Cheryl Davila won the District 2 Council seat in 2016 in a totally unexpected upset against an incumbent who held that seat for 12 years. She was not “groomed” by the insiders for the position, unlike so many who run for office in Berkeley, and it was obvious pretty quickly that she wasn’t going to roll over and vote with the bloc like her predecessor. When Cheryl got her footing, she started marching forward on the gut issues: climate, poverty, homelessness, policing and racism. 

Cheryl graduated from Mills College with academic honors and a B.A. in Business Economics on top of years of work to back up that degree. Cheryl knows how to read spread sheets, financials and budgets, adding another layer to challenge the status quo by understanding how our tax money is spent. 

Cheryl challenged the comfort zone by bringing forward the issues we need to deal with, and not with little tweaks or placating sounding resolutions that do little or nothing. The Climate Emergency Declaration in June 2018 may sound like one more resolution, but this laid the ground for the Climate Emergency Mobilization Task Force (CEMTF). Right from the start Cheryl took the lead in an effort that has pulled in elected officials, climate-focused organizations and individuals from across the Bay Area. When Mayor Arreguin killed the ad-hoc City Council committee on Climate Emergency in February 2019, Cheryl did not give up. The committee renamed itself to the Climate Emergency Mobilization Task Force and it has continued to grow as do the declarations of a climate emergency. CEMTF is offering the Fourth Virtual Summit for an Environmentally Just and Regenerative Future on Friday, October 23. 

Cheryl has her eyes open to actions and solutions put forward around the country, some even happening next door in Oakland, like the City Council’s Tuesday evening Agenda Item 22, community Refrigerators for the food insecure. It should get passed, but who knows. 

Cheryl makes it uncomfortable for those trying to polish up their progressive image while shining up to the money that feeds and supports their campaigns. 

That leads to the latest surprise: Out of town money is coming to Berkeley. It looks like the real estate industry has its eyes on District 2. 

Take a look at the online record of independent election expenditures, the “PAC” funding not tied to specific candidates (https://public.netfile.com/pub2/?aid=BRK) 

The California Real Estate Independent Expenditure Committee, tied to the California Association of Realtors, has spent $11,582.05 through October 8 to oppose Cheryl Davila. 

The National Association of Realtors Fund spent $9871.23 through October 5 to support her opponent Alex Sharenko. 

The Berkeley Neighbors For Affordability, a developer-backed group with major funding provided by a pro-developer group called Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition, is supporting Alex Sharenko and another anti-Davila candidate, Terry Taplin, in District 2, putting their money on their selection of the two most viable real estate development friendly candidates. A third, Timothy Carter, has put “housing, housing, and housing” as his top priority. 

I got this ugly feeling when I saw the maneuvers to wrestle District 2 from the woman who can’t be bought. First, the four candidates were three men against one woman, a perfect number of three to play ranked choice, cutting out Cheryl and ranking the men. 

Now add the real estate out of town money, plus the friendly sounding name “Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition” which fits within the definition of “dark money” since voters don’t know who is behind that spending. 

Smart Growth was the buzzword from the last decade used to take down neighborhoods. Now it’s been replaced with labelling single family homes racist. 

Mayor Arreguin jumped on that bandwagon in the State of the City address last Tuesday. This language and thinking conflates redlining and segregation with single family homes. It isn’t the single-family homes that are racist. Black families, just like White families, want a place to call their own. 

The racism is what was done in the past to the Black families to keep them out of White neighborhoods. Richard Rothstein’s book The Color of Law is a good start on this history. Black families have faced restrictive covenants, violence and most recently being saddled with predatory loans to strip them of their assets. 

The last vestige of the former solidly Black neighborhoods looks to be the next target. Within the formerly redlined area of South Berkeley, there is still an R-1 (single family) zone in District 2 where there have been many Black-owned homes. Developers are eager to buy up these houses and replace them with more lucrative multi-unit buildings, and they support candidates who will make this possible. 

Our ballots are here and our votes really do matter. I hope this has helped to sort through the barrage of campaigning coming your way. Cheryl has earned our support. I recommend voting for Cheryl with enthusiasm. I hate to think of all the good work she putting forward right now that will die without her. Cheryl has demonstrated her unwavering commitment to this City and the most vulnerable who need a voice at their side. Remember Ranked Choice voting can provide an instant runoff if your top choice doesn’t cross the 50% threshold. You are not required to rank three choices. 

 

EDITOR'S NOTE: We've spent a good deal of time studying the ballot, and were just sitting down to type up and post our recommendations when we discovered that Margot had already done the work. We agree with almost all of her choices, though we will probably skip voting for some unopposed incumbents whose performance in office has been a disappointment. P,S. We're skipping some incumbents whose opponents don't seem any better.

She notes these organizational endorsements:

Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club (Wellstone)

California Association of Retired Americans (CARA) 

Berkeley Citizens Action (BCA) 

Berkeley Progressive Alliance (BPA) 

League of Women Voters (LWV) 

California Teachers Association (CTA) 

NATIONAL OFFICES:
President: JOE BIDEN—Wellstone, BCA, BPA, 

Vice-Pres: KAMALA HARRIS —Wellstone, BCA, BPA, 

Congress: BARBARA LEE —Wellstone, BCA, BPA,
California State Senate, Dist. 9: NANCY SKINNER—Wellstone, BCA, BPA, 

California State Assembly, Dist. 15: BUFFY WICKS —Wellstone, BCA, BPA, 

Superior Court Judge, Office #: ELENA CONDES-- Wellstone, BCA, BPA,
BART Director, District 7, LATEEFAH SIMON --Wellstone, BCA, BPA,
Peralta Community College District Board of Directors, Area 1: JEFF HEYMAN—Wellstone

BERKELEY MAYOR:
Mayor: Jesse Arreguín,
Wellstone Club, BCA, BPA

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL:
District 2 Cheryl Davila,
Wellstone, BCA, BPA, Green Party, .
District 3 Ben Bartlett,
Wellstone, BCA, BPA,Green Party,
District 5 Sophie Hahn,
Wellstone, BCA, BPA,
District 6 Richard Illgen,
Wellstone, BCA, BPA, Green Party,

RENT BOARD:
Dominique Walker, Mari Mendonca, Xavier Johnson, 

Leah Simon Weisberg & Andy Kelley:
ALL: Berkeley Tenants Unit, Wellstone, BCA, BPA, Green Party,

SCHOOL BOARD:
Ana Vasudeo--Wellstone, BCA, BPA,
Laura Babitt,--Wellstone, BCA, BPA, Green Party, 

 

AC Transit District Directors 

At-large, Chris Peeples— Wellstone, BCA, BPA, 

Ward 1 Jovanka Beckles, —Wellstone, BCA, BPA, 

Ward 2 Jean Walsh —Wellstone,
East Bay Regional Park District Director, Ward 1, Norman LaForce—BCA, BPA,

BERKELEY MEASURES:
YES ON ALL: Wellstone, BCA, BPA
YES: FF. Fire, Emergency Services and Wildfire Prevention Tax (2/3 vote). I 

ncreases property taxes to pay for firefighting, emergency medical response, wildfire prevention.
YES: GG. Tax on rideshare trips (Uber, Lyft), when trip originates in Berkeley
YES: HH. Utility Users Tax. Increases utility tax on gas & electricity; creates climate action fund.
YES: II. Police Accountability Charter Amendment. New Independent Police Accountability Board 

to investigate & act on police misconduct.
YES: JJ. Charter Amendment: Mayor and Council Compensation (majority vote). 

Increases mayor’s council’s compensations. Wages reduced during economic downturn.
YES: KK. Charter Amendment: . Firefighters not required to live near Berkeley; City Attorney 

to be responsible to Council; replaces gendered terms in city charter.
YES: LL. GANN: Authorizes Berkeley to continue spending funds.
YES: MM. Rent Stabilization Ordinance (majority vote) Bans eviction of tenants for 

nonpayment of rent during emergency; newer rental units and single-family homes and 

condominiums to register with rent board and pay fees; adds ADUs to rent protections. 

Owner-occupied, single-family homes with only one ADU exempt from rent control.

ALAMEDA COUNTY MEASURE:
YES: W Alameda County Measure W: Half-cent Sales Tax increase
to compensate for falling revenue during pandemic (majority vote)
Wellstone, .

STATE PROPOSITIONS
YES: 14 (Stem Cell Bond)
For: Wellstone, BCA, BPA, Cancer and Diabetes Researchers. Opposed: ??
YES YES!: 15 (restores $12 Billion to Schools and Communities)
For: Wellstone, BCA, BPA, LWV, CTA. Opposed: Jarvis Taxpayers
YES: 16 (Restores Affirmative Action)
For: Wellstone, CA, BPA, LWV, CTA, ACLU. CARA, legislators, Unions. Opposed: Business, Racists.
YES: 17 (Voting while on Parole)
For: Wellstone, BCA, BPA, ACLU, LVW. CARA,Opposed: Prison guards.
YES: 18 (Allows 17-year-olds to vote)
For: Wellstone, BCA, BPA, CARA, Ret. USAF, USArmy. Opposed: Jarvis Taxpayers.
YES: 19 (Higher Property Taxes for Inherited Property)
For: Oppose: Jarvis Taxpayers
NO NO!: 20 (longer sentences and less parole)
Opposed: Wellstone, BCA, BPA, ACLU & SEIU, CARA, For: Private prisons. guards.
YES YES!: 21 (Local Rent Control Initiative)
For: Wellstone, BCA, BPA, Bernie Sanders, ACCE.CARA,Dolores Huerta. Opposed: Jarvis Taxpayers.
NO NO!: 22. (Classifying App Drivers as Independent Contractors instead of Employees)
Opposed: Wellstone, BCA, BPA,CARA, Biden, Harris, Warren, Unions. For: Uber, Lyft, Doordash.
YES: 23 (More oversight of Dialysis Clinics)
For: Wellstone, CARA, BCA, BPA, SEIU-UHW West. Opposed: Calif. Medical Association, Dialysis companies.
NO: 24 (Increased Online Data Privacy)
Opposed: CARA, BCA, BPA, ACLU, Media Alliance.
YES: 25 (Banning cash bail)
For: Wellstone, CARA, BCA, BPA, Berkeley NAACP; Opposed: Chambers of Commerce Bail Bonders , 

 

Following his disastrous debate performance mocking his opponent for wearing a mask, President Trump retreated to the sanctuary of the White house invoking fierce criticism of being complicit in the infection of a growing number of prominent Republicans who continue to follow their cult leader with complete abandon at super spreading events. Tormented by the nagging thought that his VP might upend him and aching for the adoration of his supporters, DJT sauntered out of Walter Reed Hospital endangering the safety of his Secret Service Agents for a joy ride and photo op him in hermetically sealed presidential vehicle. 

This was a brazen, wanton act of unconcern for the health and safety of others. Following media frenzy on the fate of many of his staff, a blanket of secrecy was cast on the fate of other staff members. Even this close encounter with Covid and possible death did not deter many of his mask-less staff to continue to defy basic safety procedures.  

Perhaps DJT is aping the behavior of his shirtless Russian idol, Putin who unlike Trump adheres strictly to all medical procedures to ensure his own safety only communicating with his people via video-screen. 

The president’s staff, including his medical team continue to send mixed messages terrified they might invoke the displeasure of the emperor and trigger a tweet storm. This was evident in the doctors “happy talk” while administering a drug regimen appropriate for a case of severe Covid. The man who so badly bungled the health of the nation is now abysmally mismanaging the messaging for his own treatment. 

It is hard to believe DJT is in any condition to continue campaigning after his first debate was a tirade of angry insults at his opponent. His behavior is a classic case of a sociopath in urgent need of psychological intervention.

I don't want a Hsiung victory any more than any of you. I happen to think Hill would arrive green, learn quickly, and do the job quite well, and he has my vote, but I'm not here to persuade you of that. What I do wish to do is to point out some elements of your op-ed on Berkeleyside.com that suggest you have a mistaken understanding of certain issues. To wit: 

"We’ve flattened the curve of this pandemic and avoided the tragic outbreaks and high death rates seen in other communities." 

I am deeply curious why you believe this? Who is making this claim? Can the public please see their math and reasoning? 

From where I stand, the confirmed cases data is noisy, due to testing getting going in fits and starts, but seems quite consistent with a slow but steady tripling of the initial case rate, followed by a current slight dip that is likely the result of people self-isolating due to wildfire smoke. Meanwhile, the City has consistently, stubbornly refused to do meaningful outreach to the communities where spread is highest and is repeatedly relaxing restrictions at the same time more and more research is saying those specific restrictions should not be relaxed. It's astonishing how bad the city's response has been and I don't call the choices made by elected officials and Dr. Hernandez "murderous" lightly. I mean it. 

"To ensure no one is left behind, Mayor Arreguín launched the Berkeley Relief Fund the same day shelter-in-place was declared, raising $4.4 million to support local businesses, arts organizations and at-risk tenants." 

Oh, please. The fund raised $1.312 million, nor $4.4 million,. The City of Berkeley, meanwhile, transferred ~$3 million of public money to fairly well off and secure people, business owners, and investment property owners. Concurrently, the City of Berkeley did nearly jack sh*t to take care of those most in need. If you can not be honest with yourselves and the public about this kind of thing, how do you expect to legislate judiciously? 

"Mayor Arreguín committed to putting Berkeley at the forefront of reimagining public safety." 

This is a tremendous insult to everyone who has been mistreated by the police because we all see that what Rigel and the Mayor did here is to block more direct efforts to redirect significant funding from policing to professional mental health crisis emergency responses and similar services. It is unambiguous that Council cynically undermined the overwhelming demand of the people, protecting the cop budget, protecting the cop grift on the City dollar. 

What is it that TV judge - Judge Judy - likes to say? Don't piss on our legs and tell us its raining. 

Lastly, I have observed that you really don't bother to put any effort into learning actual climate science but for the love of god please stop spreading propaganda and lies like this: 

"Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan and Resilience Strategy articulate our goals: energy-efficient buildings, universal access to clean energy, support for alternative modes of transit and electric vehicles, accelerating the implementation of our bicycle and pedestrian plans, zero waste, locally sourced food, a prepared, connected and resilient community, racial equity, and climate justice. On every one of these goals, Mayor Arreguín has been at the forefront, writing policies and launching programs that have made a significant impact. And with his persistent work over many years, some of these goals have already been met." 

The "Cilmate Action Plan" is absolutely known to be wildly inadequate. Boasting about it is simple climate science denial. 

Meanwhile, Kate and Rigel, for almost an entire year you two have blocked meaningful action on the climate emergency in committee. From your overall behavior, I have to conclude you have blocked efforts to quickly end petrol sales and so on for no greater reason than a petty political vendetta on Councilmember Davila. On behalf of every young member of my community and family - go to hell with that nonsense. All the council majority has done, under the leadership of this mayor, is pursue policies of ruin and climate science denial. Shame on you. These are crimes against humanity. 

No less a personage than Michael Mann himself was on 60 minutes --- 60 Minutes -- the other night talking about how in as few as 5 years it may become socially impossible to reduce emissions quickly enough if we don't take deeply transformational action NOW, and you clowns can't even be arsed to learn what the hell he's talking about, nevermind respond truthfully and effectively. 

Moreover you know, because I've shown you in detail, that we have a serious, foreseeable housing crisis because we can not convert residences away from natural gas fast enough. You ignore that fact. It's shamefully irresponsible. 

I used to be a very optimistic person with great hopes for the future of humanity. Then I had to deal more directly with the likes of you lot. 

Thomas Lord (District 2)

Berkeley Mayor and candidate for re-election, Jesse Arreguin, has sent out an email to his supporters in which he recommends a Berkeleyside article about his opponent Wayne Hsiung, alleging that “Wayne is running a deceptive campaign and not being truthful about his past, his record, or his true agenda. I encourage every Berkeley voter to read the Berkeleyside story before you vote.” 

The trouble is that the story recommended by Arreguin draws its information from a smear campaign against Hsiung and local animal rights activists belonging to the organization Direct Action Everywhere (DxE). Their personal character and the cause they advocate for are being maligned by those who fell out with them years ago (dating back at least to 2015), due to political and philosophical differences. 

Local animal rights activists are a motley group of people, holding diverse views and taking diverse approaches to political activism. The activists I’ve gotten to know, including Wayne, do not approve of all the actions that members of DxE have taken, Their tactics have sometimes been wrong-headed. However, they have also done much that is admirable, bringing to our attention massive abuse of animals that is egregious. Maybe you’ve learned, as I have, about what goes on in the cruel world of agribusiness. 

I’m not an animal rights activist myself – I’m not even a vegetarian. But their cause is certainly legitimate. Direct Action Everywhere is interested in publicizing the mistreatment of animals and building a movement -- an aim that is certainly not foreign to those of us who are leftist veterans! It’s true that such organizing can be done in a devious fashion, but animal rights activists here in the East Bay, including Wayne Hsiung, are doing their political work transparently and with integrity. 

Is Wayne a manipulative schemer, as represented in the Berkeleyside piece? Take a look at the articles that he himself has written, for example the Huffington Post articles listed at: Wayne Hsiung Huffington Post Articles. An introduction to his activism, including his personal history and approach to animal rights advocacy, is the podcast interview done with Ezra Klein, which is linked to in this Vox article: When doing the right thing makes you a criminal.  

Whomever we support for Berkeley mayor, I hope we can agree that turning ideological differences into slander is something we reject.

In a plague year that's already assailed us with pestilence and flame, election season unleashes further nightmares. In Washington, D.C., and red-state capitals, repudiated Republicans' arrogance is on full, breathtaking display. They're poised to steal a second election-year Supreme Court seat. They’ve internalized overlord Vladimir Putin's tactics toward stealing a second presidential election. And they’ll disenfranchise as many voters as they can to hold onto doomed Senate seats. If you're awake and have a conscience, it's easy to figure out the top of your ballot. 

But if you're awake and have a conscience, it's hard to avoid also recoiling at the petty arrogance of officeholders closer to home. City and county incumbents propose to raise regressive taxes in a depression – a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad move that prolonged the 1930s' Great Depression. And while the public suffers in a city hollowed out by UC's shutdown, Berkeley's Mayor and Council propose to substantially increase their own salaries. Using tactics worthy of Mitch McConnell, our alleged Sacramento representatives have spent their whole term trying to destroy local governments – notably, Berkeley's – while avoiding any uncontrolled public appearances in this city they’re supposed to represent. 

Why such arrogance? Because with only one credible major party, we lack a competitive political marketplace. Fellow Democrats won't challenge incumbents because that’s political suicide. So incumbents' incentives are all about groupthink, glad-handing, and taking liberties. Aspiring officeholders zip their lips and fall in line with the higher officials they hope to succeed, no matter how bad the incumbents' ideas. 

Without great choices, it's up to us, folks. To ignore endorsements and fashions, and to carefully consider which candidates and ballot-measure positions make the most sense and promise the greatest public benefits. In some cases, to cast a protest vote for the only challenger available – simply to remind a supremely arrogant and remote Sacramento incumbent about the first two words in "public service." 

Conversely, there's the late Maya Angelou's sage advice: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." Several candidates challenging really good local incumbents are transparently stalking horses for better-funded Council rivals, luxury-housing developers, and other outside interests. Your ballot is a chance to reward the officeholders who've demonstrated responsiveness to you and your neighbors. 

So, here's a brief ballot guide designed for fellow voters who are ready to join us in thinking independently, and in sending a message about good governance and basic respect for the governed. 

National Offices: 

• President & Vice President: Joe Biden & Kamala Harris. No fooling around on this line – not this time!
• California Congressional District 13: Barbara Lee.

Berkeley Offices: 

• Mayor (ranked-choice): 1. Aidan Hill, 2. Jesse Arreguín. Run up some votes for Hill, whose quirky campaign of idealism, accessibility, and optimism reminds us of Jesse 2016. Arreguin has governed decently, but has turned into the Machine politician he replaced. He now champions the big stupid greenwashed “infrastructure” projects that enrich public-works contractors – by digging up the city for years – but endanger and obstruct everyone else. He manufactures consent on the Council by twisting colleagues’ arms. He’s appointed unqualified commissioners and endorsed unqualified candidates, to please constituencies and spite rivals. The halo’s gone. Do not rank Wayne Hsiung, an angry animal-rights extremist who’s running a bizarrely well-funded campaign around a bizarre platform. Hsiung faces some 17 felony charges for animal "liberation" stunts. We’ve got enough officeholders who flout basic laws already, in the White House.
• City Council, District 2: Cheryl Davila.
• City Council, District 3: Ben Bartlett.
• City Council, District 5: Sophie Hahn.
• City Council, District 6: Susan Wengraf.
• School Board, 2 open seats: Laura Babitt is the best-prepared to narrow the District’s achievement gap. José Luis Bedolla is the only candidate with a message about academic rigor and expanding District resources for all kids. Beware of better-funded, widely endorsed candidates who articulate little or no vision for our kids’ education.
• Rent Board: Right to Housing Slate (Leah Simon-Weisberg, Mari Mendonca, Andy Kelley, Dominique Walker, Xavier Johnson)

State Offices: 

• California State Senate, District 9: Jamie Dluzak. Send the incumbent a message about peak arrogance.

• California State Assembly, District 15: Sara Brink. Send the incumbent a message about peak arrogance.

County & City Ballot Measures: 

• Alameda County Measure W: NO. Don’t raise regressive sales taxes in a depression. This deceptive measure would subsidize all county spending – including Trump-supporting, ICE-loving Sheriff Gregory Ahern’s bizarre, massive expansion of Santa Rita Jail. (While crime rates fall and de-incarceration is everyone else’s priority.)
• Alameda County Measure V: Vote your conscience. Extends a tax Berkeley doesn’t pay.
• Berkeley Measure FF Vote your conscience. Fire/emergency services are important, but a need for a higher tax would be more credible if the City Council hadn’t bundled this with the ridiculous tax measures below.
• No on Berkeley Measure GG: No. Nuisance tax that nickel-and-dimes ride-service users, while doing nothing for Lyft or Uber drivers (for that, vote no on state 22) or taxi drivers.
• Berkeley Measure HH:: NO. Don’t raise regressive sales taxes in a depression. This deceptive measure would subsidize all of Berkeley’s General Fund. If any funds were really used for a new City climate bureaucracy, expect wasteful virtue-signaling with no climate impact. Look at the City’s poorly designed bike “infrastructure,” which has gotten only a single-digit % of a university town’s commuters onto bikes. Look at countywide EBCE’s utter failure to deliver green power at remotely competitive rates.
• Berkeley Measure II: Yes.
• Berkeley Measure JJ: NO. Don’t raise Council/Mayor salaries while everyone else is suffering. Some devoted elected officials do hard, full-time work on part-time salaries, but this is just tone-deaf. Without term limits, high salaries would just entrench incumbents and attract careerists. Don’t bury Berkeley’s valuable tradition of part-time, citizen legislators, who hold regular jobs and experience what their constituents suffer through.
• Berkeley Measure KK: Yes.
• Berkeley Measure LL: Yes.
• Berkeley Measure MM: Yes.

State Ballot Propositions: 

• Prop 14: Mild no. The state’s previous stem-cell research funding was a stopgap to replace federal funding, which has since resumed. Previous promises haven’t been met, and with a destroyed state budget, this is a bad time to pile on earmarked commitments.
• Prop 15: YES. Protect homeowners, but adjust commercial property taxes to realistic levels.
• Prop 16: Yes.
• Prop 17: Yes.
• Prop 18: No. Stop messing with the age of majority, on both sides. We believe in drinks, votes, and tokes at 18 – the age of eligibility for military service.
• Prop 19: No.
• Prop 20: No.
• Prop 21: YES.
• Prop 22: No on Uber’s/Lyft’s attempt to deny benefits to their drivers.
• Prop 23: No on round three of the SEIU’s war against two dialysis providers. Spunky union, but abuse of the referendum process. We’re voting with the doctors and nurses who warn about reduced access.
• Prop 24: NO on this fake “privacy” law, opposed by ACLU, Media Alliance, and Consumer Federation of CA. It’s a toxic brew of complexity, special-interest privacy rollbacks, and deception, sponsored by one real-estate mogul. Swipe left.
• Prop 25: No. Transferring bail decisions from judges to computer algorithms is a dystopian sci-fi nightmare. ACLU’s neutrality speaks volumes.

Boards & Commissions: 

• AC Transit Board of Directors, Ward 1: Joe Wallace. He’s effectively protected riders’ interests, and has saved Berkeley bus lines threatened with elimination. He’s challenged by a scooter executive, and by a career politician who’s not focused on riders. There’s no case for change here.
• AC Transit Board of Directors, Ward 2: Greg Harper. He’s been a decent, stable director. Challenged by a scooter executive/lobbyist. There’s no case for change here.
• AC Transit Board of Directors, At-large: H. E. Christian Peeples. Automatic for the people, over many years of expert and dedicated service.
• BART Board of Directors, District 7 Sharon Kidd. Send a message to incumbent Lateefah Simon – an admirable person who’s failed to lead in this role, especially on rider safety.
• East Bay Regional Park District Board, Ward 1: Elizabeth Echols, reluctantly. She’s a longtime corporate-Democrat apparatchik, eyeing higher office. But she’s served well enough here to be endorsed by all her fellow board members. Challenger Norman LaForce is a passionate Sierran, but a longtime enemy of park access for dogs and bikes.

County Judicial & Supervisorial: 

• Superior Court Judge #2: Vote your conscience. Elena Condes has many more endorsements. But at forums, Mark Fickes has seemed a better listener and more thoughtful – traits you’d want in a judge. There’s controversy over his “civil rights attorney” ballot designation (he’s a former SEC prosecutor who’s now a defense lawyer). We’d really like to see more judicial temperament on both sides of this race, which is being waged mostly on identity politics.
• Peralta Community College District Board of Directors, Area 1: Jeff Heyman.

-#-

A long, quiet struggle over the introduction of a new era of "4G/5G" microwave transmitters in Berkeley neighborhoods erupted into violence between midnight and dawn on October 5. Once again, the issue involved a struggle between local autonomy and corporate hegemony. 

As the Natural Resources Defense Fund notes, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has sided with the Telecom giants (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc) and "eliminated environmental and historical review for siting certain cell towers and other wireless facilities." Under FCC law, states, towns, and individuals are specifically prohibited from citing health or environmental concerns when objecting to the planned "roll-out" of hundreds of thousands of wireless antennas that need to be placed every 500 feet in business districts and neighborhoods. 

The FCC also refuses to update outmoded health and environmental guidelines for electromagnetic frequency (EMF) exposures that were set in the early 1990s.  

AT&T is now starting to install the first of these new transmitters on already over-burdened wooden power poles next to the Monterey Market, Berkeley Natural Foods, the Berkeley Unified School District building and the Thousand Oaks Primary School. 

Scores of North Berkeley neighbors have complained that they never received the required legal notices that were supposed to alert them to the planned installations and thereby unwittingly lost their right to appeal the installations outside their homes. The residents also insist that current existing telecom services are more than adequate and they neither need, nor want, additional small-cell transmitters on their streets. 

One of the concerned residents living near the Gilman Street pole was Clifford Fred, a Former Planning Commissioner. Fred was outraged: “I’m shocked that city officials knew that AT&T violated Berkeley Municipal Code 16.10.040 by not notifying people within 500 feet of the 1321 Gilman or 1550 Hopkins poles before the controversial cell towers were approved, but let AT&T get away with violating the city laws. Officials used to care but now are keen on letting big telecom companies have their way.” 

In response to these incursions, a coalition of neighbors and activists calling themselves WiRED (Wireless Radiation Education and Defense) has been showing up at the targeted sites to quietly challenge the work crews—and occasionally finding the work permits to be unsigned or flawed. WiRED argues that installing small-cell wireless antennas does not qualify as "essential work" during the pandemic. 

In most cases, the interactions between workers, officers and demonstrators has remained respectful and peaceful with the work crews usually packing up and leaving the area. As WiRED activist Phoebe Anne Sorgen noted: "the cops made it clear that they'd rather not arrest us" and provided "plenty of opportunity to avoid arrest." But recently, tensions have begun to escalate. 

On September 21, WiRED volunteers (alerted by local neighbors) showed up at 1:30AM to confront workers setting up security fences around a pole on Gilman Street. With eight Berkeley police on hand, one activist recalled, "we pushed as far as we dared and were threatened with arrest several times but were not arrested." 

On October 5, a group of ten WiRED "pole watchers" (including some "camping out" in a tent pitched on the sidewalk next to the disputed pole on Gilman were reportedly "man-handled" by a contingent of BPD officers who physically assaulted the activists. Sorgen (a veteran of many protests) said her treatment "wasn't excessive" though "there's a sore spot on one forearm" from being dragged down the street "because I went limp." 

According to witnesses, at least 20 police showed up. One officer announced: "If you don't want to get arrested, get out of the way" but that was immediately followed with the order: "Every officer grab a person!" 

"It was really brutal and bad," according to Juty Blue, who was standing vigil at the Gilman pole. "It was 3:30 morning and there were only eight of us, which made it easier for police to rough us up. They grabbed and pulled and pushed people. They were rude and horrible." 

Sierra Murphree, who was occupying a tent on the sidewalk, was dragged away from the pole while still inside the tent. 

At the same time, a smaller contingent of protesters was confronted by police at the construction site near the Monterey Market. A 61-year-old protestor named Jason Winnett suffered a pulled muscle after being roughed-up by the officers. Meaveen O'Connor was left with bruises on her body and CodePink campaigner Cynthia Papermaster said the police were so aggressive she feared "they were going to break my arm." 

Mayor Jesse Arreguin responded by saying was shocked to learn of the confrontation and found the reports of police abuse "troubling." The mayor, along with several councilmembers, promised to investigate. 

An Open Letter to the City Leaders 

Berkeley resident Juty Blue (an eyewitness to the above events) sent the following Public Comment to the City Council during its October 6 meeting to discuss an evaluation of City Manager Dee Williams-Ridley: 

"Hello Mayor and City Council, 

"I am extremely disappointed that the City Manager has directed the Berkeley Police to crack down hard on peaceful protesters, especially people protesting the installation of 5G cell towers. A group of peaceful protesters were at 1321 Gilman and 1550 Hopkins early Monday morning Oct 5, in anticipation of AT&T installing dangerous and ugly cell towers on the utility poles at both locations. At 3:30am, the subcontractors, a fence rental company and a traffic control company all showed up at both sites. The protesters blocked their access to the utility poles for about 30 minutes. Then the Berkeley police showed up in force - about 10 at both sites. They surrounded the protesters. One officer said that anyone who did not want to get arrested should leave. But immediately an order went out for each police officer to grab one protester. 

"Thus people were NOT given an opportunity to leave the site. Six people at 1321 Gilman were grabbed roughly and dragged some distance away or across the street. Most of these people were in their 60's and 70's. People were bruised up. One woman lost her glasses. Four or five protesters at the Hopkins site were treated in a similar manner, or even more roughly. One woman at Hopkins thought a police officer broke her arm. 

"As work could not begin until 7am, there was no reason for the police to act in this fashion. One officer told one of us the order to quickly disperse the protesters came from the "City," not the Police Chief . . . . This police officer said that AT&T demanded this action from the City and would reimburse the city for its expenses. If true, this is very troubling. 

"We are also angry that the City Manager is allowing this work to proceed, even though AT&T violated [Berkeley Municipal Code] BMC 16.10.040 by not notifying people within 500 feet of these utility poles before the cell tower permits were approved. 

"The City Manager has never responded to the numerous letters to her from Berkeley citizens complaining that the approval of these cell towers violates the Berkeley Municipal code. The City Manager and police should be working for the town's citizens, NOT for large corporations." 

After the dreadful initial 2020 presidential debate, there were some who called for the debates to cease. That would have been a mistake because the second debate, a vice-presidential tussle between Kamala Harris and Mike Pence, was productive. It resulted in a win for Senator Harris and further momentum for the Biden-Harris campaign. 

Going into the debate, California Senator Kamala Harris had three objectives: 1. Introduce herself to the (many) voters who hadn't seen her before; 2. State the case for Joe Biden as president; and 3. Point out the failings of the Trump-Pence regime. Harris did this and accomplished a fourth equally important objective; she established that while remaining calm and personable, she can defend herself and her running mate. Harris went into the debate the most popular of the four major candidates (Trump, Pence, Biden, and Harris) and emerged even more popular. 

During the first presidential debate, Donald Trump interrupted Joe Biden 118 times. Trump's abrasive strategy was to throw Biden off his game and cause him to have a "senior moment" that Trump could use in his TV ads. Trump's strategy didn't work. As a consequence, Trump came off as a bully and Biden as an adult struggling to participate in a normal presidential debate. 

During this second debate, Mike Pence interrupted Kamala Harris 15 times. (He also interrupted the female moderator, Susan Paige, several times and ignored her pleas to stop talking because he had run over his alottedtime.) Senator Harris responded politely but firmly: " “Mr. Vice President, I am speaking.” “If you don’t mind letting me finish, we can have a conversation.” 

Pence seemed intent on flustering Harris, cause her to lose her temper, and further the "nasty woman" trope. Pence's strategy didn't work. Senator Harris kept her cool throughout the debate. As a result, an "instant" CNN poll (https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/07/politics/mike-pence-kamala-harris-vice-presidential-debate-poll/index.html ) found that most observers (59 percent) thought Harris had won the debate. More important, she improved her favorability rating: "In pre-debate interviews, 56% said they had a positive view of Harris -- that rose to 63% after the debate. For Pence, his favorability stood at 41% in both pre- and post-debate interviews." (At 63 percent favorability, Harris is far and away the most "popular" of the candidates.) 

To be fair, Senator Harris' performance was not perfect. For example, she missed a golden opportunity to nail Pence-Trump on their lack of a plan to deal with pre-existing conditions -- if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare on November 10th. 

There are two ways to judge a political debate. One is on technical points; that is, judging it strictly as a debate while ignoring the political context. The other way to judge the debate by considering its political consequences. I'm focusing on the latter. 

Coming into the debate. Vice President Mike Pence had a monumental political challenge: His boss, Donald Trump, had lost the previous (presidential) debate and is trailing in the national polls by 10.2 percent. (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/ ) In addition, the Trump-Pence campaign is running out of money (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/519766-trump-canceling-ads-in-ohio-and-iowa ) and Trump has been unable to campaign after contracting COVID-19. The Trump-Pence campaign needed a big win in the VP debate, something that would change the overall campaign momentum. 

Pence didn't get a big win in the debate. In terms of political consequences, he lost. What most women will remember about the debate is that Mike Pence interrupted Kamala Harris multiple times and disrespected the female debate monitor. (This comes at a time when the Trump campaign is losing female voters to Biden (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-poll-suburban-women-will-not-vote-for-trump-301130148.html )). Senator Harris held her own with Vice President Pence and came out of the debate looking presidential. (And became more popular.) She defended Joe Biden and avoided any major error. 

Senator Harris had three big moments: First, at the beginning of the debate she attacked Trump-Pence on their handling of the pandemic. "The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country. And here are the facts. 210,000 dead people in our country in just the last several months. Over 7 million people who have contracted this disease. One in five businesses closed... And here's the thing, on January 28, the vice president and the president were informed about the nature of this pandemic. They were informed that it's lethal in consequence, that it is airborne, that it will affect young people and that it would be contracted because it is airborne. And they knew what was happening, and they didn't tell you... The president said it was a hoax." Pence could not counter this. 

Second, Senator Harris stated the obvious: the Trump Administration is trying to cancel Obamacare. "Donald Trump... is in court right now trying to get rid of trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, which means that you will lose protections, if you have pre-existing conditions.... If you have a pre-existing condition, heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, they're coming for you. If you love someone who has a pre existing condition they’re coming for you. If you are under the age of 26 on your parents coverage, they're coming for you." 

The moderator, Susan Page, gave Vice President Pence an opportunity to respond to this: "President Trump says that he's going to protect people with pre-existing conditions, but he has not explained how he will do that. So, tell us, specifically – how will your administration protect Americans with pre-existing conditions and give access to affordable insurance if the Affordable Care Act is struck down." Pence never responded. 

At the conclusion of the debate, the moderator read a letter from an eighth grade student: "If our leaders can't get along, how are the citizens supposed to get along? Your examples could make all the difference to bring us together.” Pence responded, "We're going to work every day to have a government as good as our people." Harris had a much stronger answer: "What propelled [Joe Biden] to run for president was to see that, over the course of the last four years, what [the student] described has been happening. Joe has a long standing reputation of working across the aisle and working in a bipartisan way. And that's what he's going to do as President. Joe Biden has a history of lifting people up and fighting for their dignity." 

Senator Kamala Harris won the vice-presidential debate, providing further momentum for the Biden-Harris campaign. 

---

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