We cannot address the dangerous spread of white supremacy in America without first assessing its influence on our nation's highest office.

Yesterday afternoon, Donald Trump defended the white supremacists who descended upon Charlottesville this past weekend while insisting there was blame "on both sides." As disturbing as his comments are, they should come as no surprise.

As long as Trump has senior advisors with ties to white nationalist groups, he will never fully condemn racism and bigotry. That's why I wrote a letter to Trump yesterday calling for the removal of three prominent White House aides who are involved with the alt-right: Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Sebastian Gorka. 

It's time to root out white nationalism at the White House. Add your name to tell Trump he must remove Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka from the White House immediately. 

By placing these three men in his administration, Trump has elevated hate and discrimination to the highest levels of our government. He has signaled to white supremacists that they are no longer a fringe group – they now have advocates advising the president with their agenda in mind. 

We have already seen a manifestation of that agenda, from the Muslim ban and a ban on transgender Americans in the military, to raids on immigrant communities and attempts to perpetuate the era of mass incarceration and roll back voting rights. These policies are a result of the far-right extremist ideology held by Trump's top advisors. 

Add your name if you agree Trump must show Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka the door. White nationalism has no place in our country – especially not the Oval Office. 

Thank you for joining me in speaking out against white nationalism in the White House. 

Onward, 

Barbara Lee 

ADD YOUR NAME »

The City of Berkeley has received many emails and calls about the impending August 27 white nationalist rally at Civic Center Park. We want to reiterate that the city has not approved this gathering. It is an event organized online. No one has tried to obtain a permit nor has one been granted.

This rally, and its hateful rhetoric, is not welcome in Berkeley. We are currently exploring all options. The city will keep residents informed as the date approaches.

I also want to be clear that anyone who threatens to engage in violence -- and we have seen from earlier events that this is exactly their intent -- will be arrested and punished to the fullest extent of the law. We urge residents to avoid the Martin Luther King Jr Civic Center Park on this day. The best way to silence the white nationalists is by turning your back on their message. (Stay tuned for updates from us about how to positively send a message that the hate will not be tolerated.)

I think residents understand the extremely difficult position Berkeley finds itself in, made even more so by dealing with an amorphous group with no specific organizers. I want to reiterate that we will not allow our community to be terrorized by a small band of white supremacists whose ideology of hate is a losing one. Berkeley is proud of its multiculturalism and diversity, and we will continue to stand united against those who want to divide us.

A Berkeley restaurant employee who allegedly attended a white nationalist rally Friday in Charlottesville, Virginia, resigned from the restaurant Saturday, restaurant officials said today. 

Cole White resigned from Top Dog, a business with two locations in Berkeley and one in Oakland, after social media posts from the Twitter account @YesYoureRacist and others identified him as a participant of the "Unite the Right" rally. 

Following the resignation, Berkeley police received information about a credible threat made against the business, Sgt. Andrew Frankel said 

Police kept their eye on Top Dog's three locations overnight and officers will be making extra patrols today when they can, Frankel said. 

Top Dog, which has been in business since 1966, said in a statement that on Saturday "we spoke with Cole White. During that conversation Cole chose to voluntarily resign his employment with Top Dog and we accepted his resignation." 

The company said, "There have been reports that he was terminated. Those reports are false. There have been reports that Top Dog knowingly employs racists and promotes racist theology. That too is false." 

Longtime Berkeley residents know that walls at Top Dog locations have always been covered with political posters and clippings which might generally be characterized as libertarian.  

"We pride ourselves on embracing and respecting all our differences and every individual's choice to do as that person wishes within the boundaries of the law," Top Dog officials said. "We do respect our employees' right to their opinions. They are free to make their own choices but must accept the responsibilities of those choices." 

"Individual freedom and voluntary exchange are core to the philosophy of Top Dog," the company said. "We look forward to cooking the same great food for at least another 50 years."

A The main entrance to the downtown Berkeley BART station will close today as part of a plaza improvement project, BART officials said. 

Crews will also close the entrance at the corner of Addison Street and Shattuck Avenue.  

Both entrances will reopen in early 2018.  

BART officials said patrons will still have regular access to the platform, station agent booth and fare machines.  

As work is done to the plaza, the escalator between the street level and the concourse will be out of service for about six months. But the elevator near Shattuck Avenue and Center Street will be operating. 

Escalators between the concourse and the platform will also operate normally.  

BART officials said if the elevator isn't working, they will make arrangements to take patrons on an accessible vehicle to an adjacent station. The officials said patrons should get in touch with a station agent to arrange for that service. 

Patrons can call (510) 834-5438 to check whether an elevator is in service. Or patrons can sign up for status alerts at www.bart.gov/elevators.

Sunday evening (August 13) a few hundred mainly Berkeley residents marched to and gathered at the Martin Luther King Civic Center Park to protest the recent racist and anti-Semitic conduct of white nationalists in Charlottesville this weekend. Moreover, Donald Trump refused to condemn the violence perpetrated by these neo-fascists. The protest rally, which was one of several hundred nationwide held on Sunday, was organized by Berkeley Indivisible, which is part of a national movement to resist the agenda of the current administration and to support progressive alternatives. 

Among the major themes of the protest rally was the immense importance of working together to expose and denounce these right wing extremists. One of the speakers, Yoel Khan who is the rabbi of Beth El Synagogue in Berkeley cited the following warning: 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out- 

Because I was not a Socialist. 

 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out- 

Because I was not a Trade Unionist. 

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out- 

Because I was not a Jew. 

 

Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me. 

The Virginia Governor, Terry McAuliffe, called for the white supremacists to leave the city in the wake of violence that killed one person, injured others, and killed in a helicopter crash two State police officers. The officers were patrolling the area where the white nationalists were clashing with protesters. 

On Sunday, August 27th, 10:30am to 12:30pm, there will be a Bay Area Rally Against Hate. The rally will be on Crescent Lawn on the edge of the UC campus, Addison/Center & Oxford. Please attend and urge your friends and others to join this very important event.

Most of the people who live in Berkeley are at risk for displacement. The market prices of housing in Berkeley are affordable only to households with incomes over $100,000. The median household income in Berkeley is much less than that.

In 2015, that median income was only around $66,000. Anyone who must leave their current residence in Berkeley is statistically likely to have difficulty finding an affordable replacement in Berkeley

Each year -- year after year -- the number of Berkeley households making less than $100,000 falls by the hundreds. Each year the number making more than $100,000 grows even faster than that. (See the attached graph.)

Berkeley is Gentrification City

Between 2000 and 2015, Berkeley added over 7,000 households with incomes over $100,000.[1] Most of that increase happened just between 2005 - 2015. During that same period, Berkeley lost over 6,000 households where the people had incomes under $100,000.

Some of those changes in household income might be explained by households that had incomes below $100,000 in 2000, but who by 2015 had seen their incomes increase to over $100,000. Still, it is unlikely that explains very much of this overall change.

Each year, on average, many hundreds of very high income households move into Berkeley. And many households with lower incomes wind up leaving.

Berkeley is becoming gentrified at a very rapid pace. 

Berkeley's housing is priced for very high income households

Berkeley's market rate housing, these days, is affordable to households with over $100,000 income, but not to households much below that. For example, one is lucky to find a $2,500 apartment these days - a rent that becomes sustainably affordable only with around $100,000 income. 

The median income in Berkeley is well below $100,000 (at least for now). In 2015, the median household income was only around $66,000. 

This implies that more than half the people in town are at risk for displacement if they lose their current in-town housing. 

Students experience this pricing as unaffordable overcrowding

A segregated market of student housing has developed in two forms: 

1. There is an informal (e.g. Craigslist) market for sub-leasing bedrooms or half-bedroom in shared apartments. This large market is not strictly exclusive to students but is student-dominated in Berkeley.
2. Some units are removed from the general public market by the University of California, which leases them and acts as a master-tenant who in turn sub-leases bedrooms to Cal students.

It is typical for students in either system to pay much more than $1,000 for a bedroom space. 

Thus, this segregated student market remains priced for very high income households. Students are "simply" [sic] carrying a heavy housing cost burden. 

"Affordable Housing" programs can not help

Tens of thousands of Berkeley households face displacement pressure in the current market. If their current housing situation is jeopardized, a majority of the town would find today's market prices excessive. 

While the need is in the 10s of thousands, traditional approaches to "affordable housing", even if fully funded and optimally regulated, can produce at best a tiny fraction of what is needed -- hundreds of units per year. 

Berkeley is spending all of its 10s of millions of housing dollars on failed affordable housing strategies. 

"Streamlining" development of new market rate housing can not help

Berkeley's housing is priced for the top 30% of household incomes within the entire, commute-distance region. 

In regional terms, only a small minority can really afford to buy or lease in Berkeley -- but even that small minority is large in number compared to the size of Berkeley. 

Even if Berkeley gained newly built housing at record-breaking levels the, supply would be tiny compared to that top-earning 30% that are dominating housing prices in Berkeley. 

It follows from this that the affordability crisis can not be relieved by encouraging faster market rate development. 

Policy Direction: Social (de-marketized) housing can help

In the 1970s, Berkeley embarked on a program of price controls for rental housing. 

The idea at that time was, in the long run, to de-marketize the supply of housing and treat it as something closer to a publicly controlled utility. 

The state fought back strongly, ultimately taking away the right of California cities to control the price of privately owned apartments. (Particularly the Costa-Hawkins Act which took effect in 1996.) 

To restore price controls -- to solve the affordability crisis, in other words -- Berkeley must find another path towards public control, and public creation of housing. 

Here is a key observation for policy makers: 

If the City of Berkeley owns some unit of housing outright, then the City can lease it at any price public policy will support, and allocate the housing by any lawful means. 

The same is true (at least to some degree) if the City of Berkeley is the master tenant of unit of housing under favorable terms. If the City is getting a "good deal" on a unit, and can sublease it, then again the City has a large degree of price control over that unit. 

If the City outright owns some housing, or leases it on favorable terms, it can create a source of housing "outside" the customary housing market, and not subject to market prices. 

The City -- the public -- can allocate housing for practical needs supporting the local economy, local community, and the student population. 

Since neither market rate or traditional "affordable housing" policies can make a dent in the problems, social housing is more plausible than ever. 

Social housing has an additional, huge benefit: the capacity of the community to maintain and improve its own stock of housing using direct action and local labor rather than relying on markets dominated by the market. 

By the numbers

Income categories below $100,000 are shrinking: 

income	% households 2000	% households 2015	change
$0 - $9999	15.0	11.1	-3.9
$10,000 - $14,999	6.2	6.4	+0.2
$15,000 - $24,999	11.0	7.8	-3.2
$25,000 - $34,999	9.6	6.0	-3.6
$35,000 - $49,999	12.0	9.0	-3.0
$50,000 - $74,999	15.8	13.8	-2.0
$75,000 - $99,999	9.6	9.6	0
total	79.2	63.7	-15.5
# of households	~35,646 of 45,007	29,249 of 45,917	-6,397

Income categories above $100,000 are growing: 

 

 

$100,000 - $149,999	10.7	15	+4.3
$150,000 - $199,999	4.8	8.4	+3.6
$200,000+	5.3	12.9	+7.6
total	20.8	36.3	+15.5
# of households	~9,361 of 45,007	~16,668 of 45,917	+7,307

 

 

BART police are investigating a robbery that occurred Thursday at the Ashby Station in Berkeley. 

On Thursday at 9:31 p.m., two men approached the victim from behind in the station parking lot, knocked him to ground, punched and kicked him and took his backpack, wallet and watch, police said. 

The victim was transported to the hospital with injuries including facial swelling, an abrasion on his head and pain in his fingers. 

Police said they believe the suspects are responsible for a similar robbery that occurred in the same timeframe in a nearby neighborhood. 

That incident is being investigated by the Berkeley Police Department. 

The first suspect is described as a black man in his 20s, 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 10 inches tall and wearing black clothing. 

The second suspect is described as a black man in his 20s, 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 10 inches tall, with shoulder length dreadlocks and wearing black clothing.

Having lived in university towns for all of my adult life, I am very conscious of the difference in atmosphere when most of the students go home for summer vacation. One obvious benefit is that parking becomes infinitely easier. Yes, yes, I know that we’re not supposed to be driving, even those of us who are over 75 and a bit arthritic. Yes, I know that students never drive any more—well,hardly ever. It must be just a coincidence that many, many cars disappear from Berkeley streets in the summer—surely it’s not because the students are gone.

In the time I’ve been in Berkeley, off and on since 1958, most of the full-time residents have gotten out of the habit of shopping here, so the lack of parking is not much of a problem. There was a time, maybe in the ‘80s or ‘90s, when women of a certain age bemoaned the absence of anywhere to buy underwear in downtown Berkeley, but now they have surely figured out Amazon, or in a true emergency Target in Oakland. On the other hand, if they should need a tattoo or phony fingernails, Berkeley’s their place.

Am I the only person to notice the enormous number of commercial vacancies in what used to be neighborhood shopping streets? When I first lived in the Elmwood neighborhood, College Avenue boasted a real hardware store, at least two general bookstores, a “dry goods” store which sold both baby clothes and the now-lamented underwear selection, two “drug stores” and a “dime store” with one of almost anything you wanted. Now there are several Tibetan curio establishments and other gifte shoppes, lots and lots of restaurants, plus laptop study-hall cafes galore, but not a lot more. In particular, the two anchor corners at Ashby, north-west and south-east, stand vacant.

Neighborhood commercial districts like Elmwood are given high marks for supposed walkability, especially if they still also boast a bus route like the 51. But if there’s nowhere to buy laundry detergent or screwdrivers or toilet paper, neighborhood residents, especially those getting provisions for multi-person households, will inevitably be driving or ordering online.  

Why are there so many vacancies in ground floor retail buildings these days? It’s not just Berkeley—I see the same thing on commercial streets in other towns, and also in the many strip malls in places as diverse as El Cerrito and Santa Cruz. Even the mega-malls like Richmond’s Hilltop Mall are plagued with empty stores.  

There are two popular explanations for why this is so. 

One, obviously, is internet commerce. It’s just a whole lot easier, if you know what you’re looking for, to find it online and order it, often with the ability to compare prices to advantage. Old-style “Shopping”, the leisurely examination of a variety of offerings with the luxury of choice, has become more and more a recreational activity and less and less a practical strategy. 

The other villain, popular especially in left circles, is high rents. This kind of analysis is often coupled with criticism of a tax code which lets commercial landlords use the loss of phantom high profits on vacant stores to balance profits elsewhere. I’ve yet to see 100% convincing proof of this, but it seems plausible. 

Since much of the fabric of urban life is supposed to be woven around walking to local merchants, this is becoming a serious problem. Neighborhood-serving commercial blocks pockmarked with empty windows create their own feedback loop with more and more vacancies to be expected. 

Some new models for using these spaces show promise. I recently attended an evening meeting in a pleasant storefront space which serves as a childcare center convenient to offices in the daytime. Yoga, dance and martial arts studios seem to flourish in former retail localities. 

Cities like Berkeley support well-funded economic development departments which are supposed to take care of such problems. Unfortunately, most of what they are able to do is earnest exhortation—they have little real power. From the COB Economic Development department’s web page: 

“The Office of Economic Development has contracted with Buy Local Berkeley to conduct a niche marketing campaign to promote local, independent businesses. Buy Local Berkeley is a collaborative of merchant associations and individual small business owners in Berkeley. We educate about the cultural, environmental, community and economic benefits of shopping at locally owned and operated businesses. Our goal is to inspire people to shift their spending to Berkeley businesses whenever possible.” 

It will take more than inspiration to overcome what’s going wrong with small businesses in downtown Berkeley. They are getting evicted to make room for developments aimed at BART commuters to San Francisco, who will most likely do most of their purchasing in The City, and by UC offices for employees who drive in from distant suburbs with big box stores. 

University Hardware, a stalwart for many years, was pushed or jumped from its wonderful location on University, complete with parking lot, to a dark and dreary car-free location on a side street. Now to add insult to injury the new store has lost access even for customers' curbside pick-ups of large purchases to the city’s poorly conceptualized new bicycle routing.  

There’s a host of similar examples of local businesses done wrong which give the lie to the perpetual myth of a Downtown Berkeley renaissance. Among other things, it’s past time to re-think Berkeley’s downtown area plan, which was jammed through by the previous city administration for the exclusive benefit of developers of mega apartment blocks for well-off consumers who’ll make their purchases elsewhere. A new and better plan would give much more respect to neighborhood-serving businesses and much less latitude to the smash-and-grab crowd who covet our downtown as potential building sites for commuter condos.  

And don’t get me started on the way the University of California is sucking up downtown Berkeley as lebensraum for offices which don't even pay property taxes. That’s a rant all its own, for another day.  

 

 

 

 

As a community we need to decide what we want our values really mean and under what circumstances.

We don't want to militarize our police, stop and frisk and profiling is unacceptable, and we have "use of force" monitors at previous protest to, rightfully, ensure there is no repeat of Black Lives Matter events. These are Berkeley values we all embrace.

Now we want to stop people coming into Our City, profile and frisk them, because look like Nazis and do not support our values. (Which is true and frightening). And, if we are truthful, we would be happy if they were all run out of town or thrown in the slammer for aggressive behavior.

I would like to hear some dialog around this. It is important to hear from the community about these conflicting approaches. Peace and Justice/Indivisible PLEASE chime in!!! It is so important to the approach that will be taken.

The ominous signs of global warming are becoming more and more self-evident. Here in the United States, temperatures have risen sharply. According to the recent climate report from 13 federal agencies, the warmest climate has been experienced in recent decades, the hottest during the past 1,500 years. Record temperatures have also been experienced in Europe, Australia, the Middle East and India. The august body, The National Academy of Sciences, has signed off on the draft report which should give it enormous credibility.

If no remedial action is taken, temperatures are expected to rise 2 degrees centigrade by the end of the century. This would cause blistering heat waves, rainstorms, flooding and accelerate the obliteration of coral reefs. Greenland and the arctic ice are melting at an alarming rate a causing dramatic rise of sea levels.

The deadline for approval of the report is August 18. It is probable that Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, a climate change denier, may bury the report.

This must not be allowed to happen. I urge readers to call your representatives and demand the report be released to the general public. Light up the White House comment line and demand remedial action to combat the scourge of climate change. Silence is not an option. Your children and all future generations’ lives are at stake. If no action is taken, climate change will become the longest suicide ever attempted by the human race and we have a very good chance of success.

The U.S. continues to view North Korea’s rulers as cartoonish madmen. Kim Jong-un, North Korea's ruler, probably isn’t crazy. Like his grandfather and father before him, Kim has generally behaved in a predictable and rational way for the ruler of a small, poor country trying to preserve his own grip on power in the face of bigger and more powerful rivals.

Anyway, it is not advisable to belittle a man with his finger on a nuclear weapon. I find little comfort that Trump has his finger on our nuclear button. 

When Kim baits him, it doesn't help when Trump bites and vows to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” Aggressive rhetoric against North Korea could backfire on Trump, convincing Kim Jong-un that his regime is in imminent jeopardy and triggering a pre-emptive attack against the U.S. 

Consider what North Korea is facing. The U.S. has 35,000 troops in South Korea and holds annual joint military exercises with South Korea. Recently, the U.S. introduced anti-missile batteries into South Korea without Moon Jae-in, the new liberal South Korean president’s knowledge. Moon had the good sense to suspend their deployment. In addition, the United Nations imposed its harshest sanctions yet against North Korea, with the Security Council voting unanimously to punish the regime for developing ballistic missiles that could reach Japan and the U.S. 

What we need is a dialogue to reduce tension and avoid catastrophic miscalculation. Currently, we are on the road to conflict. 

South Korea’s president has declared he'd be willing to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "at any time, at any place" -- circumstances permitting. 

I say the U.S. should back off from the brink and fully support Moon’s diplomacy effort. The alternative is more back-and-forth bellicose rhetoric that could lead to a nuclear confrontation. 

It is worth a try.

After six months of the Donald Trump presidency, we know what to expect going forward. We've learned six lessons. 

1.Trump lies all the time: Going into the election we knew that Trump lies at an astounding rate -- typically more than one lie per day -- but after January 20th some of us nurtured the hope that Donald would begin acting more presidential. No way. 

Trump may go incommunicado for a day or two , but then he will unleash a barrage of misstatements, distortions, and outright falsehoods -- usually via twitter. On July 26, The Washington Post posted a headline, " 26 hours, 29 Trumpian False or Misleading Claims." 

Writing in Mother Jones, Denise Clifton mused that while Trump's "chronic duplicity" may be the consequence of a severe psychological disorder, "the 45th president’s stream of lies echoes a contemporary form of Russian propaganda known as the 'Firehose of Falsehood'.” Clifton wrote: 

In 2016, the nonpartisan research organization RAND released a study of messaging techniques seen in [Russian-controlled] media. The researchers described two key features: “high numbers of channels and messages” and “a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions.” 

Whether Trump lies because he's adopted a Russian tactic or because he's mentally ill, his chronic duplicity is having serious consequences for American political discourse. Many voters don't know who to believe; they can't discern "fake news." As a result there's unparalleled polarization: voters who trust Trump and the majority who don't. 

Trump's conduct riles up legitimate news outlets, such as Mother Jones and The Washington Post, and they report negatively on Trump, which feeds his paranoia, causing him to lash out. 

2. The Trump Administration leaks: Viewed from the Left Coast, the Washington culture thrives on gossip and insider information. Nonetheless, the Trump era has seen an unusual number of leaks. 

Trump supporters blame this on the dark state -- the national security state -- and the liberal media -- such as Mother Jones and The Washington Post -- whom they believe are out to get Trump. There's some truth to this suspicion because once Trump entered office, he blasted both groups. 

But there's another explanation: Trump has an unusually abrasive personality and a lot of Washington insiders don't like him. He lashes out and they respond by leaking. 

Whatever the cause, the leaks are likely to continue, which will contribute to Trump's paranoia. 

3. Trump only cares about Trump. After the election, there was a brief interval where some Americans thought, "I didn't vote for Trump, but whether I like it or not, he's the President and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt." That period is over. The nation is divided between those who support the President (roughly one-third of the electorate) and those who do not (two-thirds of the electorate). 

Since January 20th, Trump has made no attempt to reach out to those who either did not vote for him or did so reluctantly. He only talks to his base. 

And he's used his office to benefit his business interests. 

4. Trump hasn't gotten the job done. In an August 7th tweet, Trump said his base supports him because of the "record Stock Market, border security, military strength, jobs, Supreme Court pick, economic enthusiasm, deregulation & so much more." 

Trump tries to take credit for the booming stock market and the generally positive financial news, but a case can be made that these are carryovers from the Obama Administration. On the tweeted list, the only event that Trump was directly involved in was the selection of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. 

Trump's base expected him to keep his campaign promises, such as "repeal and replace Obamacare," "build a border wall," and "lock up Hillary Clinton." None of these have been accomplished. Furthermore, Trump's recent failure to push through Obamacare repeal suggests that he does not have the wherewithal to move his legislative agenda through the (Republican-controlled) congress. 

5. Trump's strongest card continues to be racism. Writing in The New York Times, Emory University professor Carol Anderson observed: 

The guiding principle in Mr. Trump’s government is to turn the politics of white resentment into the policies of white rage — that calculated mechanism of executive orders, laws and agency directives that undermines and punishes minority achievement and aspiration. 

On August 2nd, Trump endorsed a Republican initiative -- led by Senators Cotton and Perdue -- that would dramatically change immigration policy and reduce immigration levels by 50 percent. That same day, presidential aide Stephen Miller appeared at a White House press conference to laud the immigration initiative and claim that current policy has produced a slew of economic problems such as income inequality and a dearth of good-paying jobs. There's no compelling evidence for this assertion but it plays well with Trump's (white) base. 

6. The Mueller inquiry isn't going away. Since May, former FBI director Robert Mueller has been the special counsel responsible for the investigation into possible ties between Russia and Trump's election campaign. Trump calls the Mueller inquiry "a witch hunt." The good news is that the Trump-Russia investigation will grind on, mostly out of sight of the media, and eventually produce results. The bad news is that it will take many months -- we'll be fortunate to see definitive results in a year. 

Meanwhile the Mueller inquiry will feed Trump's paranoia. An already unstable President will become even more erratic. Hold on tight! 

---