United States District Judge William Alsup today issued a temporary restraining order against the U.S. Postal Service, enjoining the USPS and three of its named executives from completing the sale of the Berkeley Post Office until a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction filed by attorney Antonio Rossmann on behalf of the City of Berkeley can be conducted. 

The motion seeks to halt the sale because “the City believes that USPS will attempt to convey the Post Office property at any moment,” even though USPS reportedly has not performed the reviews required by the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. 

A story given exclusively to berkeleyside.com by an undisclosed source said that the potential buyer is Hudson McDonald, a development company which in the past has had a close relationship with investor David Teece. Who their current investors in this project might be has not been revealed. 

According to Berkeleyside reporter Tracey Taylor “Hudson would not disclose the price the developer has offered to pay for the post office, and said it could change depending on disclosures such as the cost of retrofitting the building.” This would seem to imply that there are contingencies in the sales contract which must be satisfied before the deal is final. 

Rossmann told the Planet he was pleased with the speed that the TRO was granted by Judge Allsup. It will be in effect until November 10 17. The defendants have until noon on Friday December 10 to respond.

With 89 more votes counted in the District 7 City Council race, Kriss Worthington's lead widened from 81 to 100 votes. In District 8, 399 more votes were counted, and Mike Alvarez Cohen inched closer to frontrunner Lori Droste, but the ranked choice vote continues to give a narrow lead to George Beier, 1449-1421. 

As of 4:52 p.m. today (numbers in parentheses are votes as of 12:44 a.m.yesteday) 

District 7 Kriss Worthington 475 (421) +54 Sean Barry 375 (340) +35 

Kriss' margin before latest update: +81 Kriss' margin after latest update: + 100 

District 8 Lori Droste 883 (775) +108 Mike Alvarez Cohen 866 (741) +125 George Beier 817 (711) +106 Jacqueline McCormick 579 (519) + 60 

In the initial count reported late on election night, Alvarez Cohen led in the area east of College and south of Dwight, especially in hills precincts above Claremont Ave. Lori Droste and George Beier led in one precinct each east of College. 

George Beier was the vote leader in all but one Willard Neighborhood precinct; Beier has been involved with the Willard Neigbhorhood Association for many years. Droste was leading in one precinct in Willard. 

Droste led overall and was ahead in two south of Ashby precincts, including the Halcyon and Bateman neighborhoods. Jacquelyn McCormick led in the area north of Dwight way including Panoramic Hill and adjacent student areas. 

While Droste leads in first choice votes; Mike Alvarez Cohen led in the initial vote-by-mail ballot count with 30% to Droste's 23%, and may gain more ground as more absentee votes are counted. The Registrar of Voters has not posted information to show which precincts the votes counted today came from. 

In the School Board race, Julie Sinai is still trailing Karen Hemphill (10267 to 10511) in the race for third place. Ty Alper and Josh Daniels are way ahead with 12,688 and 12,207 votes respectively.

Alameda County Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis is estimating that more than 100,000 ballots still need to be counted from Tuesday’s General Election and that the County’s elections staff is working diligently to complete the ballot counting process.

Votes still to be counted in Alameda County include approximately 18,000 ballots cast through early voting; about 82,500 vote-by-mail ballots that were received by the Registrar’s office on Tuesday; and about 24,000 provisional ballots submitted at the polling places on Election Day.  

As of the end of Tuesday night’s vote counting effort, Alameda County had counted ballots submitted by 229,228 voters. 

The vote count is set to resume on Thursday morning and Dupuis says the next update of Alameda County’s election results is planned for 5 p.m. Thursday. 

Vote counting is likely to stretch through the weekend and into next week, Dupuis said. Under State law, Alameda County has until December 2 to certify its election results.

Berkeley’s precious historic fabric is eroding before our eyes, and the City is doing nothing about it.

Designated landmarks, legally protected by the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, are routinely mutilated with no official scrutiny or counter-measures.

Take the case of the John Woolley House at 2509 Haste Street. Built in 1876, this Italianate-style Victorian is the second oldest structure on the Southside and a City of Berkeley Landmark. 

After many years of neglect, the Woolley House found guardian angels in John Gordon and Janis Mitchell, whose plan to preserve and relocate it to their lot at Dwight Way and Regent Street was approved by the City. Acquired from Ken Sarachan, the Woolley House is to be moved this Saturday and will join the landmark Blood House, which was moved from 2526 Durant Avenue in mid-August. 

John Gordon, of Gordon Commercial Real Estate Services, is known for having rescued many historic structures in Berkeley. He spent over seven years waiting for the Woolley House and hired architectural firm Siegel & Strain to document it. Preservation architect Burton Edwards created the plans for restoring the two houses at the new site, and Kaufman Construction, experienced in rehabbing old structures, is the general contractor. 

Gordon is away until December 1; his supervisor tells us that the firm took care to save all the trim from the Woolley House. Nevertheless, nobody was on site to observe when Sarachan’s crew dismantled the large west-facing bay window—an important character-defining feature—and discarded the materials on the ground as trash. 

It’s not clear whether Gordon or his consultants ever photographed the Woolley House or made detailed drawings that would enable them to replicate the lost window. When the Blood House was delivered without its roof, Gordon confessed to not having any drawings of the discarded roof. 

Meanwhile, contractor Marty Kaufman determined that the tiny Bonnet Box shop building at 2506 Dwight Way could not be moved whole to its intended new location behind the Blood House. It is not clear whether the City was alerted before Kaufman’s crew dismantled the Bonnet Box, saving only the siding. When reconstructed, this 111-year-old (or older) structure will be brand new. If all goes well, it will wear an old coat, but I wouldn’t place any bets on this happening. 

The City of Berkeley has a lengthy and costly permit process. On paper, at least, it requires projects involving historic properties to apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the treatment of such properties. 

The Secretary’s second standard states: “The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.” 

Very laudable, but it means nothing when nobody is watching and crews are left to their own devices. 

The Woolley-Blood-Bonnet Box case is hardly unique. Designated landmarks all over Berkeley are routinely mutilated with no permit and no followup enforcement. 

Kingman Hall (the historic Theta Xi Chapter House, 1914) replaced its wooden windows with ugly aluminum ones. The shingled William E. Colby House (Julia Morgan, 1905) lost its front garden and acquired a stucco playpen that disfigures its façade. On Regent Street, across from the Blood House, the recently designated Mary J. Berg House (1901) and Lucinda Reames House No. 2 (1903) lost character-defining features singled out for preservation by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. In all those cases, City staff was notified after the fact, but nothing has been done to enforce a remedy. 

No historic building should be dismantled without the presence of a preservation official. Berkeley needs to appoint such a person if it hopes to keep its historic character.

With all votes cast at the polls and some absentee votes counted, Kriss Worthington is ahead of his well-financed challenger Sean Barry.

Kriss Worthington: 421 votes (55.32%)

Sean Barry: 340 votes (44.68%)

An unknown number of absentee ballots remain to be counted but are not likely to change the outcome based on the breadth of Worthington's support. He won 8 of 11 precincts, including 7 of 8 heavily student precincts. He lost one precinct in the LeConte neighborhood and one in the Willard Neighborhood. These are the only precincts where homeowners are a significant part of the electorate. Barry was ahead in the initial count after these two precincts and initial absentees were counted but not by a large margin.

Kriss also lost one precinct east of College which includes fraternities, sororities and apartment buildings, but won the other 3 east of College precincts. This area was previously part of District 8. When The City Council redistricted District 7 to change it from a student-majority district to a student super-majority district, they removed precincts that had historically supported Kriss (including my precinct) and added the east of College student precincts. The new boundaries were approved by Mayor Bates and his allies on the Council over Kriss's objection. 

The number of initial absentees and votes cast at the polls in District 7 is tiny. In District 8, all four candidates have more votes than District 7 front runner Kriss Worthington who had only one opponent. While not all the votes have been counted, it's apparent that student turnout was very low. The absence of any hot-button state ballot measures or a hotly contested governor or senate race may help explain this low turnout. 

It's quite probable that Kriss will end up winning with the smallest number of votes ever won by a successful Council candidate since election by district replaced at large elections in 1986. This is a direct consequence of the creation of a student super-majority district, putting a huge number of UC students, especially freshmen and sophomores, who have historically not voted for local candidates in great numbers, in one district. 

It remains to be seen if the presence of a student candidate in a future election will inspire a higher turnout. This year there was no student candidate despite the fact that the ostensible purpose of creating a super-majority district was to get a student representative on the Council. 

Sean Barry outspent Kriss Worthington, raising over $36,000 (based on latest reports) compared to a bit over $25,000 for Worthington. In addition the Berkeley Police Association spent money for Barry and against Worthington (over $7000 total by my count). Barry was able to pay for 6 mailers (based on latest figures) and that doesn't include the literature supportive of Barry and critical of Worthington put out by the police union. 

Kriss certainly benefited from the endorsements by the Daily Cal and by the Cal Berkeley Democrats. His long record of appointing students to boards and commissions in large numbers and of helping interested students to get involved in local politics likely helped him to get endorsements and support from active students and to get the votes of many students even though his opponent is a young Cal grad. His long record of support for rent control and support from Rent Board candidates was probably a factor in tenant precincts

Berkeley voters made history in Tuesday by overwhelmingly approving a measure that will make Berkeley the first city in the country to place a tax on sodas and other sugary drinks, according to complete unofficial election results. 

Measure D, which won with about 75 percent approval, imposes a one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages. The tax is payable by distributors, not the consumers, and will affect businesses with annual gross receipts of more than $100,000. 

The measure required a simple majority of voters to pass. 

Dr. Vicki Alexander, the co-chair of the Yes on D campaign, said she expects the measure's victory will start a trend of cities taxing soda drinks. 

Alexander said in a statement, "We fully expect other communities to take on the soda industry and succeed." 

She said, "Berkeley has a proud history of setting nationwide trends, such as nonsmoking sections in restaurants and bars, curb cuts for wheelchairs, curbside recycling, and public school food policies. Many communities have the same ingredients that made Measure D possible in Berkeley: proactive parents and community leaders who care about the health of their kids." 

But Roger Salazar of Californians for Food and Beverage Choice, said he thinks Measure D's victory is an anomaly, saying, "Berkeley doesn't necessarily represent mainstream America." 

Salazar said anti-soda drink activists have previously put similar measures on the ballot in other cities and counties across the nation and those were all defeated. 

A similar measure was voted down in San Francisco on Tuesday and Richmond voters also rejected a soda tax in 2012. 

Measure D supporters said during the campaign that the measure is needed because overwhelming scientific evidence shows that consumption of sugary drinks causes widespread health problems, including diabetes and heart disease, starting in childhood. 

But opponents alleged that the measure is riddled with loopholes for some businesses and it doesn't make sense because chocolate milk, alcoholic beverages and some coffee drinks wouldn't be taxed no matter how much sugar or how many calories they contain. 

Opponents also pointed out that the money raised by the tax will be funneled into the city's general fund and city officials could shift the money to other things besides educating people about the dangers of drinking soda.

While the Alameda County Registrar of Voters released unofficial ranked choice voting results from District 8 in the early hours of this morning showing George Beier the unofficial winner in Round 4 with 1267 votes to 1242 for Lori Droste, the outcome of the District 8 election is still very much in doubt. 

So far only 2746 votes for the four candidates, Beier, Alvarez Cohen, McCormick and Droste, have been counted. The County Registrar of Voters has not announced how many absentee ballots remain to be counted. It could take several days for the remaining votes to be counted. 

Total votes cast for District 8 candidates in previous gubernatorial elections are as follows: 

2010: 4569 

2006: 4327 

2002: 4755 

Even recognizing that total turnout was quite probably down this year, it still seems unlikely that it's down 40%. There could easily be another thousand or more ballots to count in District 8. Absentee voting is on the rise in Berkeley and many people drop their ballots at the polls. 

In addition, as a result of redistricting to create a student super-majority district, District 8 has fewer low-turnout student precincts and more high-turnout homeowner precincts than it did in 2010. 

The four candidates are only separated be 256 votes. The results, as of 12:44 a.m. today are: 

Lori Droste: 775 

Mike Alvarez Cohen: 741 

George Beier: 711 

Jacquelyn McCormick: 519

At 2 a.m., with all 328 precincts reporting, Tony Thurmond, with 39,356 votes (54.3%) leads Elizabeth Echols with 33,091 votes (45.7%).

Click here for full details by county.

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

Many of you have already voted by mail. Fantastic. If you have a "mail-in" ballot that you did NOT mail, you can still vote! Just fill out your ballot, sign the envelope and drop it at ANY polling place on November 4. Polls are open 7 am to 8 pm for "voting day" voters as well as dropping off "mail-in" ballots that didn't make it into the post.

This is a resend of the voting recommendations I sent out a few weeks ago. Thank you for voting on November 4 and for considering these recommendations!

TONY THURMOND, State Assembly 15th District

First and foremost, please vote for Tony Thurmond. I know Tony well, and he is hands down the best candidate to represent us in Sacramento. This is an exceptional opportunity to elect a dedicated, experienced, ethical and compassionate leader. Tony is endorsed by an impressive list of organizations and individuals - please join them!

 

Berkeley Candidates and Measures: 

School Board - Vote for 3: Josh Daniels, Ty Alper, Karen Hemphill 

Rent Board - Vote for 4: Harr, Townley, Chang, Laverde-Levine, Selawsky  

District 1 - Alejandro Soto-Vigil  

District 8 - Jacquelyn McCormick  

Measure D: Soda Tax - YES 

(The soda industry has spent 2 million+ to defeat Measure D - the most of any campaign in Berkeley History. This is our best shot to protest against an industry that profits from pushing over-consumption of empty calories)  

Measure F: Parks - YES  

Measure P: Oppose Corporate Personhood - YES 

Measure Q: Flexible Worktime -YES 

Measure R: Green Downtown & Public Commons - YES  

(Don't be misled by the AVALANCHE of developer-funded opposition. Measure R is extremely important for the future of Berkeley. www.berkeleydowntown.com)  

Measure S: Council District Gerrymander - NO 

County and State Candidates and Measures: 

Alameda County Superintendent of Schools: Monroe 

Alameda County Measure BB: Transportation Funding- YES 

Governor: Brown 

Lt. Gov: Newsom 

Sec. of State: Alex Padilla 

Controller: Betty Yee 

State Treasurer: John Chiang  

Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones 

Attorney General: Kamala Harris 

US Representative: Barbara Lee 

State Assembly District 15: Tony Thurmond 

State Sup. of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson 

Proposition 1 - Water Bond - No Position  

(CA water management desperately needs help, but is this the right package of projects and policies? Too many dams? Boondoggle for corporate farms? Or, is this the best we can do given all the pressures and players involved? Some of my trusted sources say yes, others say no. Sorry not to have a definitive recommendation on this one!) 

Proposition 2 - Rainy Day Funds - YES 

Proposition 45 - Undercuts Obamacare - NO 

Proposition 46 - Hurts Healthcare - NO 

Proposition 47 - Low-Level Felonies become Misdemeanors - YES 

Proposition 48 - Gaming on "Indian" Lands - No Position  

Most importantly, thank you for voting, by mail or on election Day November 4. If you don't get through the whole ballot, please be sure to vote for Tony Thurmond for State Assembly 15th District.
 

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope to see you around the neighborhood!

UPDATE: Both Rob Browning (husband of Councilmember Linda Maio) and Councilmember Jesse Arreguin have informed me that Browning did not actually say nothing at Saturday's Save the Post Office rally, as I report below. Arreguin said in an email: "I don't know if you noticed but Rob Browning was shaking his head when I spoke about R and was heckling me. No different than Joe Wilson." Browning put it this way: "When Jesse Arreguin used the occasion to showcase his support for Measure R (his attempt to undo our Downtown Plan), I addressed Arreguin directly, in a voice loud enough for many to hear, to make it clear that support for the post office is not synonymous with support for Arreguin’s measure." Since I myself wasn't paying attention at that moment, I'm not sure if it's accurate to characterize Browning's interruption as heckling--but he seems to have made his opinions clear. I do think the First Amendment supports a reasonable amount of tasteful heckling, if that's what it was."

So I went to today’s Save the Berkeley Post Office rally, where I saw what are possibly the best, most public spirited people in Berkeley. Unfortunately, there are only about a hundred of them, and almost all of them are over 50. I’m in no position to complain, needless to say, being a good bit over 50 myself, but still.

It is glaringly apparent to me at this juncture that these worthy people have been sucker-punched by the city council majority councilmembers loyal to Mayor Tom Bates, who were distinguished by their absence this morning. I was told by three different people, all of whom I know to be reliable, that the Bates gang had decided not to show up because supporters of Measure R, the downtown zoning initiative, would be present and perhaps allowed to speak. (Linda Maio’s husband Rob Browning did attend, said nothing.)

A couple of speakers told me they consciously omitted mentioning R because they wanted to preserve the shaky coalition with the anti-R councilmembers—fat lot of good it did them, of course. A couple of Measure R supporters, notably the vanishingly small number of feisty under-30s, brought and flaunted their Yes-on-R signs anyhow. This included Councilmember Jesse Arreguin, the guy who first said that we’d need to enact a zoning overlay to protect the public buildings in Berkeley’s Civic Center, including the Post Office.

He was right, of course, so right that even Berkeley’s conservative councilmembers voted to pass the necessary zoning change before the vote on the Measure R initiative could take place. That’s the sucker punch, of course.

The difference between an initiative and a council-passed ordinance is that the latter can be axed by a simple majority vote of council. I know nothing about sports pools, but if someone can explain them to me I’d like open a pool right now on how long it might take the Berkeley City Council to repeal the historic district zoning overlay if Measure R loses.

If Measure R passes, of course, it would buy more time for the effort to save the Post Office. But downtown developers have invested vast sums trying to defeat it, and they might well succeed.

If it goes down, it looks like the only chance to save the Berkeley Post Office, both the structure and the function, is the lawsuit which environmental law ace Antonio Rossmann, whose office is in downtown Berkeley, has agreed to undertake on the city’s behalf. 

It looks very much like the much-touted “negotiations” which were supposedly taking place between Mayor Bates and the Postal Service executives were just a stalling maneuver until the right buyer could be found. 

I wish I could say I was surprised. 

.

The U.S. Postal Service has walked away from negotiations with the City of Berkeley and the National Trust on an agreement to preserve Berkeley’s Main Post Office. The USPS refuses to respond to questions from the City of Berkeley or from Congresswoman Barbara Lee regarding the imminent sale. We still do not know who the buyer is. The USPS has listed the building for sale since July, 2013, with CBRE, the realty firm headed by Richard Blum, Senator Diane Feinstein's spouse. Attempts to obtain further information from the U.S. Postal Service were stonewalled.  

Those opposing the sale will rally this Saturday, November 1st at 10:30 AM-12:30 p.m. on the steps of Berkeley's Main Post Office at 2000 Allston Way . Music is by Hali Hammer, Redd Welsh and Occupella.  

Speakers include Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Councilmember Jesse Arreguin, Jacquelyn McCormick from the National Post Office Collaborate, Gray Brechin, Living New Deal, Harvey Smith of The National New Deal Preservation Association, Peter Byrne, author of Going Postal, and Alan Menjivar, American Postal Workers’ Union. Senator Loni Hancock, Mayor Tom Bates, Council Member Linda Maio, all loyal supporters of keeping the Berkeley P.O. public are invited. Congresswoman Barbara Lee is scheduled to speak at 11 AM. 

Berkeley's downtown Post Office was built in 1914 with funds from the federal government obtained by Republican Senator William Knowland at the request of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce. It is a copy of a famous Renaissance orphanage in Florence, Italy. Our Post Office was declared an historic landmark by the U.S. Department of Interior, the State of California and the City of Berkeley. It was paid for with tax money. Save the Berkeley Post Office is opposed to its privatization.  

The Federal Advisory Commission on Historic Preservation stated that the sale would have an adverse effect on the historic post office because the USPS refuses to agree to protect the building through enforceable covenants. The USPS and city cannot agree on how a protective covenant would be administered, as the city argues that the USPS should not be trusted to honor it. 

"It is the ACHP's opinion that the proposed covenant does not sufficiently ensure the long-term preservation of the property since the USPS, as covenant holder, has the unfettered authority to approve adverse effects to the property (including demolition) while having neither the demonstrated experience in holding preservation covenants nor an apparent interest in the long-term preservation of the property," said the ACHP response, signed by Reid J. Nelson, director of the Office of Federal Agency Programs. A better, more qualified covenant holder would be the State Historic Preservation Office, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, or the City of Berkeley. 

The City of Berkeley and the National Trust were in negotiations with USPS for a preservation covenant to preserve the historic features of the building. Abruptly USPS ended these discussions and has entered into a contract to sell the building. The USPS refuses to identify the prospective buyer. 

According to Attorney Tony Rossmann, Berkeley wants to avoid unnecessary legal action. But that if the USPS won’t answer information requests, the City will go to court to prevent the USPS from quickly disposing of the historic post office as has happened in other parts of the country.

Chancellor Nicholas Dirks laid out an “unabashedly bold” new vision for UC Berkeley’s Richmond Field Station on Wednesday, telling faculty members of plans to remake the site as a global campus and “living laboratory” in partnership with public universities from around the world, as well as with private industry.

In a presentation to the Academic Senate, Dirks unveiled the outlines of the proposed Berkeley Global Campus at Richmond Bay, a reimagining of what was originally planned as a joint “second campus” for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and UC Berkeley. In 2013, the Lab lost expected U.S. Department of Energy funding in the wake of federal budget sequestration, leaving development plans for the Richmond Field Station in limbo.

But it also opened the door to the Berkeley Global Campus, or BGC, which Dirks on Wednesday called “a transformational model for expansion of our educational and research activities in a global context.” 

“We have the opportunity to become the first American university to establish an international campus in the United States, right here in the East Bay,” he said. Instead of planting the UC Berkeley flag in a foreign country — the standard “export model” for global universities — BGC would be “a new form of international hub where an exclusive group of some of the world’s leading universities and high-tech companies will work side-by-side with us in a campus setting.” 

Along with its research mission — similar to that previously envisioned for the Richmond Bay Campus — BGC will have a strong educational component as well, with both undergraduate and graduate-level academic programs for U.S. and international students. Programs would be aimed at giving students the tools “to tackle global challenges through a curriculum centered on global governance, ethics and political economy, cultural and international relations,” as well as “direct involvement in special projects with global implications and applications.” 

And despite the new vision, “One thing that hasn’t changed regarding plans for the Richmond campus is our commitment to the community,” added Dirks, vowing to make BGC “a catalyst for developing the city’s south shoreline into a vibrant mixture of high-intensity light industrial, commercial and residential uses.” 

‘Back to the drawing board’ 

In his California Hall office, Dirks recalled how “we had to go back to the drawing board” when federal funding fell through as he was arriving on campus to take over as chancellor. With UC Berkeley taking over leadership of the project from LBNL, he set up a high-level committee to explore other options, which led back to an idea he’d highlighted in his inaugural address: that of a global campus. 

But joint campuses in other countries are subject to limits on academic freedom, both for faculty and for students, Dirks said, which is one important reason to have a branch 10 miles — as opposed to 10,000 miles — from the main Berkeley campus. 

Chancellor Dirks’ full presentation to the Academic Senate (as prepared) 

In other parts of the world, for instance, “If you have academic freedom on campus, does that you mean you have it in a classroom, in office hours, in a seminar?” he asked. “What if you go and have coffee with your professor off-campus? Is that ‘off-campus,’ or is it an extension of the campus experience? Do you have complete access to the Internet? Does it mean everything you post on the Internet — even if the Internet is a controlled platform for exchanges between and among the members of a classroom — is protected? What kinds of things could you potentially advocate for? 

“We talk about a branch campus affording a ‘safe harbor,’” said Dirks, noting that U.S. universities with beachheads in mainland Asia and the Middle East experience “considerable anxiety” when presenting themselves as islands of academic freedom. “Well, this is a safe harbor in a safe harbor.” 

Secondly, Dirks said, the proximity to Berkeley “allows real interaction, collaboration, participation — in both directions — for faculty, students and even staff to develop things that don’t require the first conversation always to be, Who’s going to get the airfare?” 

The third key reason for BGC is “location, location, location,” he said, drawing an analogy to “the New York experience,” in which then-Gov. Michael Bloomberg enticed a stellar group of research institutions to compete for the chance to build an engineering campus on Roosevelt Island, which lies just off Manhattan in the East River. 

BCG is “not a collaboration with the city, but with the university,” Dirks said, “but it’s in a location that’s attractive to people both nationally and globally.” 

Global vision, community benefits 

Yet even as he stressed the lure for academic and corporate partners, Dirks reaffirmed the central importance of the project to the local community, as laid out in a joint letter of commitment he and LBNL director Paul Alivisatos issued in April. The ongoing nature of that local partnership was reflected in comments by two prominent Richmond leaders, both of whom serve on a diverse working group comprising leaders from the City of Richmond, advocacy groups, business, labor and education. 

“As a member of the working group established to advise the university on this new project,” said Jim Becker, president and CEO of the Richmond Community Foundation, “I know that many civic and community leaders are ready to partner with Chancellor Dirks to bring the community benefits in the Joint Statement of Commitment to Richmond to life.” 

Bill Lindsay, Richmond’s city manager, lauded Berkeley’s continuing interest in developing “an internationally respected campus on Richmond’s southern shoreline,” as well as its “commitment to partner with Richmond to bring broad economic and social benefits to the community.” 

“We look forward,” Lindsay said, “to Richmond, Calif., becoming an international hub for education, collaboration and global citizenship through one of the most respected universities in the world.” 

“ 

One thing that hasn’t changed… is our commitment to the community. 

– Chancellor Dirks 

” 

Dirks said “active and serious discussions” are taking place with potential partners and investors. 

“Since we began to develop this new plan after the May regents meeting — and that’s really when it started — we’ve already experienced the growth of phenomenal interest in being part of this,” he said. Expressing confidence that “this will happen,” he likened the process to UCSF’s Mission Bay project in San Francisco, which only got rolling after a settlement with the biotech company Genentech provided $50 million toward the construction of its first building. 

Terezia Nemeth, BGC’s development manager, played a pivotal role in bringing Mission Bay to life, first as a special assistant to then-San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and later as a vice president with Catellus, that project’s commercial developer. She agreed the Berkeley project could follow a similar pattern, albeit with one important difference. 

“If we had the kind of money that UCSF had at the time — if we had the ability to get money, say, from a donor or from the state to build a building — we could start creating the Berkeley Global Campus right now,” Nemeth said. “The problem is that we don’t have access to that capital, so we need to depend on partners to help us with bringing capital to the table. 

“We have the land, we have the entitlements, and we have the intellectual wherewithal, the brain trust. But we need investment,” she said. “So, really, we’re down to the money. We just need that initial source of funding to get it started.” 

Dirks, for his part, emphasized the potential returns — academic, economic, cultural and otherwise — from what is still an evolving vision for the Berkeley Global Campus. 

“It’s not just the right thing to do,” he said. “It’s going to bring huge opportunities to the campus, and to Northern California. It’s going to make real a global connectivity, and it’s going to make it real for our students and our faculty. It’s going to bring resources to campus, and it’s going to open up global resources to people from our campus in ways that no other model, I think, would stand a chance of coming close to replicating. 

“We’re not getting money from the state to build a campus,” Dirks said. “So we’re finding new ways to raise money for activity that’s going to permeate the campus.” 

Another day, another mailbox full of campaign junk. It just gets ranker and ranker (or should I spell it rancor?)

I have to disagree with reader Mal Warwick , who wrote in the last issue that he disagreed with reader Joanna Graham’s complaints about negativity in the 15^th Assembly district race run by Elizabeth Echols against Tony Thurmond. He said:

“Ms. Graham states that she has never seen such a negative campaign as the one waged by Elizabeth Echols for the 15th A.D. seat. This is laughable. What planet does Ms. Graham live on? The negative campaigns I’ve personally witnessed over the years involve vicious ad hominem attacks, statements quoted out of context, and outright lies.”

You don’t have to go all the way back to past campaigns which longtime political operative Warwick witnessed or participated in (many of which I also remember and participated in) to find “vicious ad hominem attacks, statements quoted out of context, and outright lies.”

Just check your mailbox from the last week.

Let’s start in reverse order with an outright lie. 

That would be the mailer labelled “Paid for by Committee to Save the Downtown Plan, No on Measure R, with Support from the California Association of Realtors, major funding provided by California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization Political Action Committee, Los Angeles, $50,000; Panoramic Interests, Berkeley, $20,000; District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity, Pinole, $7,500; HSR Berkeley Investments, LLC, Los Angeles, $7,500.” 

A mouthful, isn’t it? The two names here which are not self-evident are corporations which are seeking high rise building permits in Berkeley's downtown.  

And the lie? Inside there’s a photo-shopped picture of what looks like a charming typical Berkeley brown shingle house, with its exploding roof pierced by a big arrow with a very big $ on it. Overall, in large caps with red emphasis; “Measure R would send Berkeley’s housing costs through the roof.” 

Well, no. There’s nothing about Measure R which would raise the cost of buying houses like the one pictured. That’s not true. 

Measure R might, however, adversely impact financial backers of downtown projects like the one proposed by mailer patron HSR Berkeley Investments, LLC. According to Frances Dinkelspiel on Berkeleyside.com, the L.A. real estate corporation “wants to spend as much as $200 million to construct a 180-foot tall tower with 355 residences next to the property that now houses the Shattuck Cinemas and various offices. The new apartments… are designed to appeal to empty nesters and high-income professionals, such as those who work at booming San Francisco technology companies like Twitter and Salesforce.com, but who are having difficulty landing an apartment in the city.” 

Then we have some “statements quoted out of context”. Here Exhibit A is a large glossy brochure paid for by the Berkeley Police Association. Yes, you read that right. Did you know that the Berkeley Police Association PAC is doing its damnedest to defeat District 7a Councilmember Kriss Worthington and elect a candidate anointed by the Bates machine in his stead? 

In giant type on the outside: “CRIME IN PEOPLE’S PARK AND ON TELEGRAPH AVENUE IS OUT OF CONTROL. Want to know Incumbent Councilmember Kriss Worthington’s ‘SOLUTION’ to crime in People’s Park AND on Telegraph Avenue?” 

So open it up. This just in: on September 16 Worthington seems to have suggested that something like a “vibe monitor” at the Park and on Telly might be informative. Oh, the horror! 

Big headline, white on red background: VIBE MONITOR. Do you believe it?!? Shocked, shocked! 

This mild metaphorical idea, floated by Worthington in almost a tongue-in-cheek mode in the hip vernacular, was but one of many,many proposals he has made to improve conditions in his beleaguered south of campus area. Most of them have been rejected by a council which is dominated by well-off homeowners who hate to spend money on a district which is now 84% students. 

Which highlights another bald-faced lie on another piece, this one paid for by Sean Barry, the Bates candidate: “Kriss Worthington has consistently opposed nearly every effort to revitalize downtown, reinvigorate Telegraph Ave. and improve the affordability and availability of housing in Berkeley.” 

Simply not true. Period. I’ve watched the great majority of council meetings in the last couple of decades, and that’s just a lie. Kriss claims 37 separate ordinances introduced, and I think he’s underestimating. Quite a few, though not all, have passed, and he's gotten perks for his district on others. 

And also, same piece, a “vicious ad hominem attack”: “Kriss Worthington: 18 Years of Obstruction Has Led to Sky High Rents and Neighborhoods Decline.” 

A third flyer, a letter from Sergeant Chris Stines, President, Berkeley Police Officers’ Association, claims that “Berkeley needs fresh young minds”—but also says that Kriss’s opponent is “the ONLY candidate endorsed by” fresh young minds like Tom Bates (76), Loni Hancock (74) and Nancy Skinner (60). Ageism, any one? 

The police group’s letter claims that “This is the first time our organization has gotten involved in a City Council race.” I don’t think that’s true either. Those with long memories seem to remember that Berkeley police came out against—Nancy Skinner, when she ran for City Council herself long ago. 

Of course, we in Berkeley can’t claim the sleaze championship if we compare ourselves to Richmond. There Chevron has contributed millions of dollars to the candidates it supports, with the aim of defeating Councilman Tom Butt, now running for Mayor. In one hit piece of cloudy provenance but obvious funding he was labelled “the Arkansas Rattlesnake” (he came from that state) and was accused of a great variety of crimes. 

But never one to take an insult lying down, Tom turned this intended insult into a witty campaign trademark, a song which you can hear by clicking here. 

But we’re no slouches here in Berkeley when it comes to clever campaigning with a positive message. The members of the Berkeley Rent Board, running unopposed, are using the election as a way of educating the electorate about the way “A Berkeley We Can All Call Home” is made possible by our rent and eviction control ordinances. 

Take a look at this: 

It’s too bad the Echols organization and some of the other campaigns didn’t measure up to this standard. I'll be glad when the election is over and my mailbox fills up with unsolicited catalogues again. 

This little area is dedicated to those of us who still vote in person instead of by mail. We're the ones who agonize over making up our minds, and feverishly sort through the plethora of brochures in mailboxes and on doorsteps.

First: The Planet strongly supports the unopposed slate of candidates for Berkeley's Rent Board. Their campaign is being pitched as an opportunity for Berkeley voters to reaffirm their support for our long-standing rent control and stabilization law, so don't forget to check those candidates' boxes on your ballot. See today's editorial for a great video they've created.

In other areas (click on the links for fuller discussion) :

Berkeley Measure S (district gerrymander): NO

Berkeley Measure R (green downtown regulations):Yes See Op-ed: Measure R delivers on the green promise for downtown

Measure D (tax on sugar in soda pop) : no endorsement

Alameda County Measure BB: Yes

Judges: Here's a recommendation from an active young lawyer who comes from a family of distinguished attorneys but wishes to remain anonymous: " Liu, Cuellar, Werdegar,Humes, Kline, and Stewart are yes. Ruvolo is the only definite no." She voted yes for everyone but ruvolo.

Then, click here for the candidates: Which Berkeley City Council Candidates Should You Support?

Short Answers: District 1, Alejandro Soto-Vigil; District 4, Jesse Arreguin (unopposed); District 7, Kriss Worthington; District 8, Jacquelyn McCormick (rank her first, followed by George Beier, second, and Lori Droste, third. Skip fourth place. A knowledgable friend says put Droste ahead of Beier, and in truth they're both a lot better than the incumbent. You choose, but leave Cohen off your list. )

And per a reader's request, here again is a link to Margot Smith's recommendations.

Finally , check out this May editorial with a self-explanatory title: Tony Thurmond is the Best Choice for California Assembly ...

We're pleased to see that Berkeley Councilmember Jesse Arreguin has added his endorsement to Tony's long list of fans.

In the video below you can see Tony explain his campaign in person at a Berkeley house party: 

Please also do look back at the Public Comments in the last few issues, where there are some very intelligent arguments for various candidates and measures.

A friend whose taste for local peculiarities far outstrips mine came across comments you published on yesterday’s rally supporting preservation of our post office. My wife Linda Maio, a member of Berkeley’s City Council, and I have from the outset been strong and vocal supporters of saving the post office. Prior commitments with campaign volunteers prevented Linda’s attendance yesterday.

But I was glad to be able to attend and to show my enthusiastic support for the powerful remarks of Congressmember Barbara Lee, Grey Brechin, Tony Rossman, and Harvey Smith. In your oddly skewed comments on the rally you chose not to report the remarks of those primary speakers but, rather curiously, chose to report that I, in their audience, “said nothing.” I’m afraid you got that wrong. When Jesse Arreguin used the occasion to showcase his support for Measure R (his attempt to undo our Downtown Plan), I addressed Arreguin directly, in a voice loud enough for many to hear, to make it clear that support for the post office is not synonymous with support for Arreguin’s measure. Thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight.

The absurdity of trying to silence a commencement speech by Bill Maher on campus, in the aftermath of the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, is a throwback to the HUAC and McCarthy era of the 1950's. The reaction against a differing opinion is a screaming fit that overlooks evidence within recent history. 

Why is it that American students, whose parents spend copious amounts of money to have them educated, or who take out astronomical debts for their own education, cannot remember the history of their parents or their century? While they may pontificate on American history for the past 250 years they cannot seem to fit together the evidence of the last 100 years. 

The brainwashing of American youth has been effective; if this IS the case, the right-wing has won! To paraphrase Shakespeare's poetry. The fault is "not in our stars but in ourselves." Oh god, goddess, and common sense!!!

We express outrage when we witness barbaric acts of terror but sadly, our ‘war on terror’ has unleashed the dark side of our own nature. We have committed appalling atrocities in our theatres of war in Vietnam and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. A federal judge recently ordered the Obama administration to outline in detail its reasons for concealing as many as 2,100 photographs showing the torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2009, Obama agreed to release the photos, but later changed his mind, saying they would "inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in danger." As part of a decade-long transparency case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the judge ordered the government to delineate, for each photograph, its reasons for keeping the images from the public. The photographs are reportedly more disturbing than the famous images of torture by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib. 

In a world where famine exists and children die daily from starvation I question anyone on this planet who supports taxing distributors of non-alcoholic beverages. While some arrogant individuals in Berkeley proclaim a war on random beverages with sugar in them, I bet they would love a pantry stocked with organic juice and green tea if a huge earthquake struck our town. Michael Bloomberg is one of the funders of Measure D as some sort of vendetta because his soda initiatives failed in NYC. The “soda tax” in Berkeley or Measure D, fails to take a realistic view of reality. First, if it did cut down on people’s consumption of drinks containing sugar then there would be less recycling for the Ecology Center to collect for its “green jobs” revenue. Ecology Center would lose money, the people who collect cans and bottles for their livelihoods would lose money under Measure D. Measure D does not encourage healthy eating and puts people at risk for mental health crises and eating disorders. 

Measure D began, as most political movements in Berkeley begin, as an outcry. Activists wanted to rally behind children and prevent obesity and diabetes. A good intention went awry as the “soda tax” proponents forgot about public health and instead morphed the legislation into a patch job to stop an impending local deficit for a mismanaged budget. Measure D’s per ounce tax on random sweetened beverages, would place generated tax money in a general fund and not any health related program. The destination of “soda tax” funds is ultimately unknown, determined by a capricious city council. 

While Berkeley residents espouse equality for all kinds of people and lifestyles, the “soda tax” fails to demonstrate respect for all cultures and people. Instead, the tax judges and punishes stores and stigmatizes consumers. Rather than allowing merchants and the public to make their own decisions about nourishing their bodies, Measure D scolds stores and people who want specific meal items like an organic sweetened green tea, and a tax would not stop people from buying drinks that contain sugar. 

Food and beverage taxes, which their advocates claim to make strives for public health, do not modify consumer demand. Alcohol or tobacco taxes do not stop people from consuming those, actually harmful, products. The same phenomena is likely to occur with Berkeley’s Measure D “Soda Tax” initiative. People who already consume sweetened beverages, which is the majority of citizens, will continue to purchase those beverages. People will continue to buy organic juice and cane sugar pop, which after all is how Measure D generates revenue for the general fund. 

Berkeley’s soda tax punishes and stigmatizes the people it claims to assist. Research studies show that people who struggle with obesity have an increased likelihood for psychiatric issues. This is the group of people Measure D advocates think they will help, when in actuality that is the group that suffers the most from any food or beverage tax. A sweetened drink tax could stigmatize children, teens, and adults who continue to consume a taxed coconut water or organic lemonade. Under a beverage or food tax people could be scrutinized by the community in supermarket check out lines and throughout the city for what they choose to place in their bodies. There is plenty of pressure for people to have their weight fall into a standardized chart. Food and soda taxes center around conformity, which especially hurts girls. 

People who suffer from eating disorders often have anxiety about others watching them eat. I knew two beautiful girls who lost their lives to food battles. Both of the girls were nervous about other people watching them eat and could not eat lunch around others at school. Food and beverage taxes have the potential to cause people embarrassment about their eating habits and lead them to cut out certain beneficial foods and drinks that they would normally consume. A lower caloric consumption is part of the pathway to an anorexia diagnosis. On the other end of the spectrum, a person could become guilty about drinking a taxed beverage, like an organic lemonade, and begin drinking that lemonade in private away from peers and neighbors. Closeted eating is associated with bulimia as it can turn into a binge to satiate the desire for these stigmatized meal items. The “soda tax” ignores the cultural significance and health role of sweet liquids. 

Juice is a staple. Juicers are great although in a pinch, in a group, on the go, and in an emergency a bottled beverage has huge benefits. Measure D attempts to place a tax on any juice that is not 100% juice. Anyone who has ever donated blood or stayed overnight in a hospital has been offered fruit juice. For someone recovering from a flu, a ginger ale or lemonade might be the only sugar the stomach can absorb. As a person’s unique biochemistry fluctuates in response to illness, environmental factors, stress, pregnancy cravings, that person ought to have the freedom to quench her thirst. 

It is not the government’s place or a group of perfectionists’ duty to shake grocers down for more tax money on the food and drink items they sell. Berkeley needs to stand back and be grateful that we even have stores, stores with fully stocked shelves. The proposed and unconstitutional beverage taxes in Berkeley, San Francisco and New York are signs of the affluent who have lost sight of a fight worth fighting. The group think mentality affiliated with the “soda tax” movement jeopardizes our democracy and first amendment freedoms. 

“…However, if you are going to take away this tool from the worker, YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY HIM MORE if you want him to use a rake, hose or broom to achieve the same kind of cleanliness…” – Hank Chapot, Letters to the Editor, Berkeley Daily Planet October 24, 2014

Hank Chapot’s perspective on leaf blowers is important, since he is a gardener himself. But he is wrong. Nobody has to pay their maintenance or landscaping crews extra not to break the law. 

Homeowners and business owners need to make certain the people they hire to do landscaping and maintenance respect our community, which passed the law outlawing gas-powered leaf blowers in January of 1991. 

I hope Hank Chapot will enlist the University of California at Berkeley’s better nature, and pressure it to trade in the gas-powered two-stroke leaf blowers for electric ones, which are legal under our law, or better still use ecologically sound and sufficiently effective rakes and brooms.

Buoyed by the certainty that that the Justice Department would never hold the titans of Wall Street accountable for their financial shenanigans, they are back engaging in the same dirty business. Just two years after conducting massive fraud, some of the world’s biggest banks are now suspected of a repeat performance. Several large banks and their hired guns - high powered consulting firms - are again in the cross hairs of federal prosecutors. 

Several large foreign banks have been cited for doing business with Iran in violation of US law which was enacted out of deference to Israel which is itself in complete violation of international law. Makes sense? 

Historically, when banks have repeatedly run afoul of the law, they have paid a small fine, pocketed huge bonuses and returned to business as usual in sharp contrast to the average ‘small’ petty criminal. The fines are tax deductible and regarded as the cost of doing business. 

Prosecutors have traditionally favored so-called deferred-prosecution agreements, which suspend criminal charges in exchange for the bank’s paying a fine and promising to curtail their criminal behavior. This has enabled a disturbing pattern of Wall Street recidivism. It is ironic that when assessing the magnitude of the criminal behavior, the government outsources the task to consultants who are often the bank’s own customers. In short, the system is rotten to the core. 

In his recent address, President Obama reiterated that the U.S. government “will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL” by providing airstrikes against ISIL targets in Iraq, military support for the Kurds, and political reform in Baghdad. These strategies will only last temporarily because history has proved that when group like ISIL (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) or now simply called IS (the Islamic State) that has a strong ideology, any military intervention only last temporarily. For instance the death of Osama bin Laden seems as the death of Al-Qaeda but until now Al-Qaeda still exist. Shooting Osama bin Laden to death does not stop Al-Qaeda from operating. The same logic goes for IS. For example, shooting 500 IS militants will not stop ISIL from spreading its wings to establish Islamic State in the world. Thus, the most effective way to stop IS extremism is by educating Muslim youth that IS does not represent Islam because Islam means peace. 

In order to understand why IS does violent actions, one must understand its ideology. ISIL tries to reestablish Islamic caliphate— central Muslim leader like during the time of Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam. IS strongly believes that everyone must convert to Islam and every nation must follow the Sharia or the Islamic law because through this way, the world will be saved from destruction. An elected caliphate will then guide Muslim to achieve that goal. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a self-proclaimed caliphate and is currently a leader of IS. 

However, there is one Muslim sect that claims to have a true caliph. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community claimsHis Holiness Mirza Masroor Ahmad to be the true caliph. In a BBC interview, when asked how did he know that he is the true caliph, Ahmad answered, “I never ever thought of becoming khalifa [caliph] but once I was elected, I could see some force from within me or from outside asking me that I must take this responsibility. Always when I take any action, I feel that Allah is helping me.” Ahmad further explained that IS caliph has no legitimacy because if it is true caliphate, it will be supported by Allah. That is the belief of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. 

Because IS mostly targets Muslim youth, Muslim leaders must educate Muslim youth about Muslim identities and why IS does not represent Islam. Sure, IS member can claim they are Muslim and some non-Muslim might have anti-Islam sentiments. However, it is up to people to choose which representation of Muslim they want to belief. And in order to have a better understanding of Islam, one must understand that Islam itself means peace and jihad refers not to war but to a struggle to become a better person. 

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community educates Muslim youth about their identity by launching several programs. For example, it launches a nationwide campaign called Muslim for Life in which more than 10,000 pints of blood is collected annually to save the lost life from 9/11 Attacks. This campaign promotes the true Islamic teaching of the sanctity of life and thus it shows that IS actions of beheading journalists and worker do not represent Islam. As Obama said in his remark on IS, all evil in this world cannot be eradicated therefore not all people will choose the positive way and some people might choose to join IS. 

Jim Crow is already the big winner in this year’s election.

The corporate elite needs him to gouge the planet, wage perpetual imperial war and rule the rest of us.

So the voting rights of millions of student, elderly, black, Hispanic and other citizens are being lynched.

Which may now decide control of the US Senate, many state legislatures...and the White House in 2016.

The corporate-Christian right has long used the drug war to disenfranchise millions of citizens of youth and color. Gay and reproductive rights, feminism and the politics of hate have mobilized Christian crusaders to flood the polls for the GOP.

But we have turned the corner on the culture war. With the winding down of marijuana prohibition, widespread gay rights victories and more, Republicans now need the outright destruction of democracy itself to win an election:  

1. The Corporate Cash Tsunami: The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allows gargantuan sums of corporate money to shape this election. It’s now the norm for unlimited cash to buy air time, fake “news” reports, billboards, phony astro-turf campaigns, and key election officials in charge of counting the ballots. 

2. Killing Voter Registration: With a wide range of tactics, corporate/GOP functionaries are restricting access to the polls. In Ohio and elsewhere millions of citizens have been stripped of their voter registration rights, almost all in dense-packed urban areas that lean heavily Democratic. “Golden Days” when voters can both register and vote have been eliminated. Voter registration organizations like ACORN have been destroyed and strict restraints have been placed on others, all with the focused agenda of making it increasingly difficult for grassroots, non-millionaire citizens to vote. 

3. Outright Destroying Voter Registrations: More than 40,000 voter registrations are now “missing” in Georgia, as they were in Ohio 2004. Georgia’s critical US Senate race may well be decided by fewer votes than were “lost”, and we expect parallel outcomes elsewhere. 

4. New Poll Taxes: Despite the 24th Amendment abolishing the poll tax, voter ID and other requirements put targeted restrictions on who can vote. Citizens registered at the same address for decades are being turned away at the polls. At least 500,000 Texas voters may be disenfranchised by ID laws aimed at students, the elderly and people of color, more than enough to turn most key elections in the state, including the widely watched governor’s race. 

5. Discriminatory ID Demands: Student IDs are being rejected in Texas and elsewhere, with the obvious impact of denying young people the vote. Gun owners’ permits are being accepted as valid voter ID. 

6. Electronic Vote Theft: Easily manipulated electronic voting machines were key to Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 victories for George W. Bush. They have spread far and wide. The easy electronic flipping of entire elections has obvious appeal to hugely funded corporate players throughout the US. 

7. Suppressing Electronic Dialog: But the Democratic Party generally refuses to even discuss electronic vote theft, apparently fearful the mere dialog will scare away voters. The Daily Kos website has banned numerous election protection bloggers (us included), apparently for just that reason. But without hand-counted paper ballots, anti-corporate campaigns are mere exercises in futility.  

8. Bought Democrats: Democrats also depend on corporate money and regularly vote pro-corporate. As with Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, they walk away from elections they legitimately won, and refuse to fight for the basic rights of their core supporters to safely vote and have those votes counted, even if it means their own defeat 

9. Buying Rigged Legislatures: Numerous key states have been gerrymandered to guarantee GOP majorities no matter what the states’ citizens want. Ohio’s strong popular Democratic majority is “represented” by an overwhelmingly GOP state legislature. And 12 out of Ohio’s 16 US representatives are Republican. Throughout the US, corporate money is buying parallel GOP control of legislatures and Congressional delegations in states with Democratic majorities.