Full Text



Candidates' Night in Berkeley's District 8

Russ Tilleman, District 8 Council Candidate
Monday September 10, 2018 - 03:16:00 PM

The CENA meeting on Wednesday night was interesting!

Lori Droste started by pointing out that Chris Stine, the head of the Berkeley Police Association, was present. And it sounded like she brought him along. I don't know if he lives in the neighborhood, but I'm guessing he was there representing the police union. Which doesn't seem very appropriate for an endorsement meeting.

She said the police union is "heavily invested" in getting her reelected, and that lots of City of Berkeley employees are endorsing her.

I mentioned that I don't think it is appropriate for elected officials to take money from anyone whose contract they negotiate, and that Ms. Droste took money from the BPA. 

When she got the microphone, she said something to the effect of me not knowing what I was talking about, that she doesn't take money from BPA. 

While the others were answering questions, I got out my phone and went online, and when the mic came back to me, I apologized for looking on my phone during the meeting and pointed out that on October 27, 2014, Lori Droste took $250 from the Berkeley Police Association. 

I heard some kind of noise from the audience at that point. I'm not sure what it was, I was focused on answering the next question before I ran out of time. But I got the feeling they didn't appreciate her sorta lying to them. 

Later, she was going over-time, I think it was her closing statement, and she said it was too bad she was out of time because she had so many more things she wanted to say. 

The moderator told her "yes but you don't have the right to say them" in a rather confrontational tone. 

The meeting when for over 2 hours, with just the 4 of us talking. So it was much more intense than the usual endorsement meetings that cover Districts 1, 4, 7, 8 and maybe rent board and auditor. 

The crowd didn't look very happy. Alfred stayed positive throughout the meeting, but Mary Kay and I both confronted Droste about not representing everyone in the district, and Droste accused Mary Kay of going door-to-door misleading people about the issues. 

Droste also said that Nancy Skinner has offered her a seat at the table with the new Governor talking about keeping Alta Bates open. She implied that is a reason to vote for her, that she has some kind of inside track working with Skinner. I am going to call up Skinner this afternoon and ask whether I will be invited if I am elected, or whether this is some kind of smoke-filled-room deal that is only good between her and Droste. 

Personally, I think Droste's attempt to lie her way out of taking money from the police union fits with her approach of not really listening to the people in District 8 and just doing whatever she wants to do. Lying to her constituents seems to be another aspect of her lack of respect, bordering on contempt, for us.


Public Comment

An Idea for Berkeley Hiding in Plain Sight

Carol Denney
Sunday September 09, 2018 - 05:09:00 PM

It is no secret that some police officers sleep in their vehicles behind old City Hall or in their vehicles on nearby streets. It's more convenient than dealing with the traffic congestion from their homes in other cities. And there's plenty of room in the parking lot behind old City Hall. It's not strictly legal, but you know how it is in this town. How much anybody cares depends on who complains about whom.

Let's be sensible. Let's have at least one small area behind old City Hall set up for short-term stays for anyone who needs it. It is hypocritical that the police are doing this but treating anyone else who does it as criminal. Vehicle and tent sweeps without tent and vehicle alternatives are deeply unfair, especially considering the recent Martin v. City of Boise decision, which dives into deep detail about self-reporting shelters' honest gauntlet of requirements, inconveniences, and simple unavailability if, for instance, you don't get there in time to sign up during seasonally changing hours. What is characterized by our city manager and city council as "availability" is often, as described in Boise, a cruel facade unnavigable by disabled or homeless people .

Each district of the city should be obligated to find a similarly accessible setting and arrange for sanitary facilities, so that each district can play a role in addressing this simple necessity. Sleeping in doorways isn't just unfair to people forced to do so- it's entirely avoidable in a city with our wealth and imagination. Districts which have successful experiments can assist other districts, create partnerships as needed until we have working interim arrangements during this obvious housing crisis. 

The necessity of addressing our housing crisis, which hits police officers, students, and, well, everybody, is not going away. The Mayor and the Berkeley City Council are poised to implore the police force to crackdown on even sitting in the renovated BART plaza at their opening City Council meeting this Thursday, September 13, 2018, 6:00 pm. Instead, they could agree that the BART plaza should be open to everyone, and that each district should work cooperatively to harbor creative living arrangements until more permanent solutions are available. 

An Open Letter to the Berkeley City Council and City Manager

Carol Denney
Friday September 07, 2018 - 01:22:00 PM

The Downtown Berkeley Association has declared its intention to continue ripping down community fliers on September 1, 2018, citing a memo (see below) which concludes, "removing signage posted on public infrastructure is outside the scope of the City's contract with the DBA." They have included no new information. There does not appear to have been any effort to involve commission input, etc.

Director Caner also plainly states in the letter below that he and his cleaning crew intend to make content-based distinctions between fliers, choosing which can and can't remain in places where it is legal to post according to their content. This violates the First Amendment.

Could the City Council please put a moratorium on the DBA's destruction of community fliers? It is election season and a back-to-school time of year when promotions and events need all methods of outreach. My own perhaps imperfect understanding is that the city may have the right to outlaw all fliers, but cannot make distinctions based on content without violating the Constitution. 

Thank you,

Carol Denney
1970 San Pablo Avenue #4
Berkeley, CA 94702

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 




Re: Removal of Flyers in the Downtown  




Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:19:38 -0700  




John Caner  




Carol Denney  





We were told by the City Manager’s office a couple weeks ago that the prior City Attorney’s OFF-AGENDA MEMORANDUM Re: Removal of Fliers still stands and we can reinstate removal of flyers. Therefore we plan to start removing flyers again starting September 1, except for “temporary signs concerning noncommercial events in the form of posters, placards, cards, stickers, or fliers…that are affixed to City-owned utility poles and lampposts in a manner consistent with standards promulgated by the Department of Public Works” as allowed by city ordinance. In addition, I have also told our Ambassador staff to be particularly mindful about NOT removing ANY election related material through election day. 


Best, John 


John Caner, CEO
Downtown Berkeley Association
2230 Shattuck Ave., Suite C
Berkeley CA 94704
510.549.2230 x12



From: Carol Denney
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:31 AM
To: John Caner
Subject: Re: FW: Removal of Flyers in the Downtown 


Dear Mr. Caner,

I haven't heard back from you or the City Manager about the flier issue, and want to make sure we're all up to date - is there
any progress? Thanks,

Carol Denney

On 5/24/2018 12:26 PM, John Caner wrote: 

Here is my email of May 10 


From: John Caner
Date: Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:44 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Brea Slimick , "Klein, Jordan" , Dee Williams-Ridley , Carol Denny
Subject: Removal of Flyers in the Downtown 


Dear Mayor and City Council, 


We are in receipt of Ms. Denny’s letter to Council yesterday, date May 9, 2018 


On Tuesday this week (May 8) I received a call from Breanne Slimick regarding a complaint regarding DBA Ambassadors, and later that day received a unscheduled visit from Ms. Denny. I told them both that we would immediately suspend taking down flyers until we can get clarification from City. I also told them that we had a policy of not taking down nonprofit and political flyers (i.e., noncommercial) as per city regulations, but will be review the policy with City before taking down any more flyers. Moreover, Ms. Denny requested an written confirmation of this suspension. I wrote her the attached email and gave her a hard copy before she left our office. 


In response to this issue regarding removal of flyers in the Downtown: 


1) I would like to draw your attention to City Attorney Zach Cowan’s Off-Agenda Memorandum re Removal of Fliers.  

In his memo he states, “…BMC section 20.16.010.A generally prohibits signs on public right of way, including utility poles and light poles, subject to some limited exceptions. The relevant exception here is temporary signs concerning noncommercial events...” He also writes in a footnote that “The exceptions are not required by the First Amendment – a city may completely ban all signs on the public right of way…” 


2) The Scope of Services from our contract with the City does not provide specific permission to remove flyers, but states that our environmental enhancements will include “:Maintenance teams that sweep, scrub and pressure wash sidewalks, remove litter and graffiti, increase the frequency of trash removal and maintain landscaping throughout the District.” Neither does it give us permission for animal and human waste removal, and other cleaning and maintenance functions, but we do it within the general scope to maintain a clean and welcoming Downtown. 


Similarly the DBA contract with the City does not give us specific permission to weed planters or tree wells, but states we will provide "Beautification and placemaking improvements that make Downtown Berkeley more visually attractive, which might include enhanced, landscaping, holiday décor, way-finding signage, trash receptacles, streetscape, planters, urban design plans, bike racks, programming of BART Plaza and other public spaces, etc.” Hence we weed planters and tree wells to maintain the overall the overall visually attractive appearance of the District. 


We will work with City staff to get further clarification on this issue, so we abide by the City regulations to protect temporary signs concerning noncommercial events, but also meet the goals of a clean, vibrant and welcoming Downtown. 


I think most of us would agree that having the our street poles and other fixtures in Downtown and other commercial districts covered with commercial flyers is not in the general interest of the Berkeley community. 




John Caner, CEO
Downtown Berkeley Association
2230 Shattuck Ave., Suite C
Berkeley CA 94704
510.549.2230 x12


The Constitutionality of Homeless Encampments

From, and only as editor, by Steve Martinot
Sunday September 09, 2018 - 05:45:00 PM

The issue of homeless encampments keeps coming up. The reason is the insistence on the part of the police of Berkeley on raiding encampments, dispelling the groupings of the homeless, disrupting their comunities, and thereby forcing them to move, to resettle themselves, to figure out new procedures for survival.

During the Obama administration, the Dept. Of Justice formulated an argument for how and why and under what circumstances this practice of raiding and disbanding homeless encampments is unconstitutional, in violation of the 8th Amendment. The 8th Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” It therefore limits what can be punished and what not. In particular, certain conduct can be punished, but mere status cannot be under certain circumstances (such as illness, poverty, unemplyment, etc.). To the extent homelessness is a (involuntary) status, camping cannot be punished unless a city provides an alternative, such as shelter.

What I include below is an edited (by me) version of a writ introduced into a trial in Boise, Idaho, in 2015, on this issue. It was a case in which the homeless of Boise had filed suit against the city, and the US government had filed an amicus brief in favor of the plaintiffs (the homeless). I have redacted the footnotes and references in the interest of length, and to make the text more palable to those who would have trouble wading through all the legal citations and rhetoric. I tried to only leave the meat of the government’s argument there. For those who have no trouble with legalese, and would like to look at the precedents and citations, the name of the case is Bell vs. City of Boise, its trial number is 1:09-cv-00540-REB, held on 08/06/15. And the full text of the government’s writ can be found here – https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/643766/download 


Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-540-REB 

Bell vs. Boise, Idaho 


On any given night in the United States, half a million people are likely to be experiencing homelessness. …These individuals must find space in a public shelter or sleep on the street. For many homeless people, finding a safe and legal place to sleep can be difficult or even impossible. In many cities, shelters are unable to accommodate all who are homeless. 

In [the case before us], Plaintiffs are homeless individuals who were convicted of violating certain city ordinances that prohibit camping and sleeping in public outdoor places.7 They claim that the City of Boise and the Boise Police Department’s (“BPD”) enforcement of these ordinances against homeless individuals violates their constitutional rights because there is inadequate shelter space available in Boise to accommodate the city’s homeless population. Plaintiffs argue that criminalizing public sleeping in a city without adequate shelter space constitutes criminalizing homelessness itself, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

The parties disagree about the appropriate framework for analyzing Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs encourage the court to follow Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) (vacated after settlement, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007)), which held that enforcement of anti-camping ordinances may violate the Eighth Amendment on nights where there is inadequate shelter space available for all of a city’s homeless individuals. Defendants, on the other hand, assert that Plaintiffs’ reliance on Jones is “heavily misplaced, factually unsupported, and immaterial to this case.” 

Because the summary judgment briefing in this case makes clear that there is a significant dispute between the parties on the applicability of Jones and conflicting lower court case law in this area, the United States files this Statement of Interest to make clear that the Jones framework is the appropriate legal framework for analyzing Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims. Under the Jones framework, the Court should consider whether conforming one’s conduct to the ordinance is possible for people who are homeless. 


The United States has a broad interest in ensuring that justice is applied fairly, regardless of wealth or status. In 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder launched the Office for Access to Justice (“ATJ”) at the Department of Justice to address the access-to-justice crisis in the criminal and civil justice systems. 

The United States also has an interest in breaking the cycle of poverty and criminalization. Numerous federal initiatives are tasked with reducing the criminalization of homelessness and promoting alternatives to incarceration that are more cost-effective, efficient, and fair. 


The “Cruel and Unusual Punishments” Clause of the Eighth Amendment “imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such.” … The Supreme Court has held that laws that criminalize an individual’s status, rather than specific conduct, are unconstitutional. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). 

[In a precedent case in Texas (1968), one judge] did not rest his decision on the status-versus-conduct distinction … but instead … considered the voluntariness, or volitional nature, of the conduct in question. Under this analysis, if sufficient evidence is presented showing that the prohibited conduct was involuntary due to one’s condition, criminalization of that conduct would be impermissible under the Eighth Amendment. 

For the present case [with respect to the homeless] he explained that, “[f]or all practical purposes the public streets may be home for these unfortunates, … because … they have no place else to go. 

[There is] a division among courts on how to analyze claims regarding enforcement of anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals. … Some courts have adopted the plurality’s strict interpretation, … that the Eighth Amendment limits only the criminalization of status, not of conduct. … Others have considered the voluntariness of the conduct, and whether the conduct is inextricably linked to one’s status, such that punishing the conduct is indistinguishable from punishing the status.  

[In precedent cases], the United States took the position … that criminalizing sleeping in public when no shelter is available violates the Eighth Amendment by criminalizing status. Consistent with the position taken in its previous filings, the United States now urges this Court to adopt the reasoning of Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006). Although the Ninth Circuit ultimately vacated its opinion in Jones—pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007), not for any substantive reason— its logic remains instructive and persuasive. 

The Jones court considered the enforcement of a Los Angeles ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping in public. There, like here (Bell vs. Boise), the court was asked to consider a statute that, on its face, criminalized conduct rather than status. Importantly, the plaintiffs in Jones presented evidence suggesting that there was an inadequate number of shelter beds available for homeless individuals, so many individuals had no choice but to sleep in public in violation of the city’s ordinance. 

The Jones court [in LA] found enforcement of the ordinance to be unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs because of inadequate shelter space. The court based its decision on its conclusion that, “[w]hether sitting, lying, and sleeping are defined as acts or conditions, they are universal and unavoidable consequences of being human.” Because sleeping is unavoidable, the court then considered whether the plaintiffs had a choice to sleep somewhere other than in public, concluding that they did not: “for homeless individuals in [Los Angeles’] Skid Row who have no access to private spaces, these acts can only be done in public.” Id. at 1136. As a result, the court found that sleeping in public is “involuntary and inseparable from” an individual’s status or condition of being homeless when no shelter space is available. The court concluded that, “by criminalizing sitting, lying, and sleeping, the City [of Los Angeles] is in fact criminalizing [Plaintiffs’] status.” 

Defendants {Boise}assert that reliance on Jones would be “misplaced, factually unsupported, and immaterial to this case.” [They] rely on a conduct-versus-status distinction. Defendants’ position is unpersuasive because the Eighth Amendment analysis is not limited to the plain language of the statute in question. Rather, the practical implications of enforcing the statute’s language are equally important. Those implications are clear where there is insufficient shelter space to accommodate the homeless population: the conduct of sleeping in a public place is indistinguishable from the status of homelessness. 

It should be uncontroversial that punishing conduct that is a “universal and unavoidable consequence[] of being human” (having to sleep) violates the Eighth Amendment. It is impossible for individuals to avoid “sitting, lying, and sleeping for days, weeks, or months at a time . . . as if human beings could remain in perpetual motion.” Once an individual becomes homeless, by virtue of this status certain life necessities (such as sleeping) that would otherwise be performed in private must now be performed in public. Therefore, sleeping in public is precisely the type of “universal and unavoidable” conduct that is necessary for human survival for homeless individuals who lack access to shelter space. 

In this way, the Boise anti-camping and disorderly conduct ordinances are akin to the ordinance at issue in [a precedent case], at least on nights when homeless individuals are—for whatever non-volitional reason(s)—unable to secure shelter space. When adequate shelter space exists, individuals have a choice about whether or not to sleep in public. However, when adequate shelter space does not exist, there is no meaningful distinction between the status of being homeless and the conduct of sleeping in public. If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless. 

[An objection has been raised to this approach, namely that it] implicates the knotty concerns with the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause becoming “the ultimate arbiter of the standards of criminal responsibility.” 

The Justices in the [precedent case] declined to extend the Eighth Amendment prohibition to the punishment of involuntary conduct because they feared doing so would allow violent defendants to argue that their conduct was “compelled” by any number of “conditions.” … But these concerns are not at issue when, as here, they are applied to conduct that is essential to human life and wholly innocent, such as sleeping. No inquiry is required to determine whether a person is compelled to sleep; we know that no one can stay awake indefinitely. Thus, the Court need not constitutionalize a general compulsion defense to resolve this case; it need only hold that the Eighth Amendment outlaws the punishment of unavoidable conduct that we know to be universal. Moreover, … Its punishment would serve no retributive purpose, or any other legitimate purpose. [The thrust of this] interpretation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause is that criminal penalties may be inflicted only if the accused has committed some act [or] has engaged in some behavior which society has an interest in preventing.” 

Using this reasoning, the vital question for the Court becomes: Given the current homeless population and available shelter space in Boise, as well as any restrictions on those shelter beds, are homeless individuals in Boise capable of conforming the necessary life activity of sleeping to the current law? If not, enforcing the anti-camping ordinances and criminalizing sleeping in public violates the Eighth Amendment, because it is no different from criminalizing homelessness itself. … 

The realities facing homeless individuals each day support this application of the Eighth Amendment. … Regardless of the causes of homelessness, individuals remain homeless involuntarily, including children, families, veterans, and individuals with physical and mental health disabilities. Communities nationwide are suffering from a shortage of affordable housing. And, in many jurisdictions, emergency and temporary shelter systems are already underfunded and overcrowded. 

Criminalizing public sleeping in cities with insufficient housing and support for homeless individuals does not improve public safety outcomes or reduce the factors that contribute to homelessness. As noted by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, “[r]ather than helping people to regain housing, obtain employment, or access needed treatment and service, criminalization creates a costly revolving door that circulates individuals experiencing homelessness from the street to the criminal justice system and back.”17 Issuing citations for public sleeping forces individuals into the criminal justice system and creates additional obstacles to overcoming homelessness. Criminal records can create barriers to employment and participation in permanent, supportive housing programs.18 Convictions under these municipal ordinances can also lead to lengthy jail sentences based on the ordinance violation itself, or the inability to pay fines and fees associated with the ordinance violation. Incarceration, in turn, has a profound effect on these individuals’ lives.19 Thus, criminalizing homelessness is both unconstitutional and misguided public policy, leading to worse outcomes for people who are homeless and for their communities. 

Conclusion: The Court should adopt the analysis in Jones to evaluate Boise’s anti-camping and disorderly conduct ordinances as applied to Plaintiffs in this case. If the Court finds that it is impossible for homeless individuals to secure shelter space on some nights because no beds are available, no shelter meets their disability needs, or they have exceeded the maximum stay limitations, then the Court should also find that enforcement of the ordinances under those circumstances criminalizes the status of being homeless and violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. 

Submitted this 6th day of August, 2015. 

Sharon Brett - Attorney for the United States of America 


Israel Demolishes More Homes

Jagjit Singh
Sunday September 09, 2018 - 05:47:00 PM

Israel’s high court has long lost its independence has become a tool of the Israeli government. Its latest ruling issued an order to demolish Khan al-Ahmar village impacting 180 Palestinians. 

The Palestinian Authority said the decision to “raze Khan al-Ahmar village consolidates Israel's "colonial project" of building an arc of settlements" that effectively cut off occupied East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. This illegal decision uncovers the colonial DNA of Israel's institutions that work to confiscate Palestinian lands effectively alienating it from the West Bank and killing any hopes for a future contiguous Palestinian state.” The removal of the Bedouin village bisects the West Bank in two. The villages were despondent with the court ruling.  

According to the United Nations, Israeli authorities have approved a minuscule 1.5 percent of all permit requests by Palestinians between 2010 and 2014.Hagai El-Ad, director of Israeli rights group B'Tselem, denounced the court's ruling as “cowardly, immoral, and outrageous.  

The decision only demonstrates the Israeli High Court is working not in the service of justice but is simply working in the service of the occupation. This is yet another example where we can see that the occupied people cannot find justice in the courts of the occupiers." The forced relocation would violate international law. El-Ad said “displacement and settlement expansion have been the policy of many Israeli governments but the current one is acting with a glaring green light that it sees from Washington".This is an absolute travesty! 

No Nukes: Not Rocket Science

Jack Bragen
Sunday September 09, 2018 - 05:11:00 PM

Attitudes on global warming are massively different between Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Addressing global warming is difficult, because Americans and China, among other countries, rely heavily on fossil fuels to make people's lives easier than it would otherwise be. It will take a lot of work on the part of millions of people for us to switch to forms of energy that do not put carbon into the atmosphere. In addition, we are up against the oil and energy mega-corporations, who feel threatened by solar, since it is harder to make a profit on a decentralized energy system. This is despite the fact that if the U.S. decentralized our energy source, it would be to our military advantage. 

However, the mental resources required to put a stop to nuclear proliferation, are easily attainable, and world leaders need to have a meditation session or something.  

My guess is that leaders of countries perpetuate their nuclear arms races in large part because it helps them remain in power over their populations. If they didn't have a good way of frightening their citizens and being in a position of "protector," it would be harder to extinguish civil unrest. 

Secondly, countries have a collective "agreement" that we are all enemies of each other, we need to be frightened of each other's nukes, and we need our own nukes to keep us safe from attack. This is based on fear. Nobody feels as though they can disarm their nuclear arsenals without the consequence of being invaded. 

Third, some leaders of countries, such as president Putin, have ambitions of world domination. I have no understanding of this. 

Leaders of countries, we might assume, are somehow superior individuals compared to an ordinary person. However, this idea does not bear out. Leaders are more efficient at accomplishing tasks and at commanding others, compared to an ordinary person. They do not fade as easily from stress and fatigue. They tend to have a higher intelligence compared to most people. However, they are not inherently superior. If they were, we would not be facing the continuous threat to all life forms on Earth; tens of thousands of nuclear bombs on a hair trigger. 

What would it take to get world leaders to sit with each other at the United Nations and come to terms with this common threat to all humanity? It would require bravery. And it would require that leaders would give a damn about their fellow human being rather than only being concerned with their own power, prestige and affluence. It would require taking a chance. The risk is that if there were one or two nations who did not abide by the agreement, it wouldn't work. However, it is a risk that leaders must take. The alternative is the near certainty of doom for life on Earth. 

This is why I suggested a "meditation session." If world leaders could use cognitive techniques in order to upgrade their level of consciousness, it would be possible for what I have described above to actually happen. 

If total universal disarmament isn't realistic, do it in increments. Do it with verification. But we have to do this. And U.S. citizens are in a unique position, because we have the First Amendment, to put pressure on government to initiate something like this. 

Some countries are a genuine threat to the U.S., and to other nations. And those in positions of power, often, aren't interested in doing the right thing. Some are ruthless, and we wouldn't want to cross paths with them or make them upset with us. How do we address this? 

We live in unique times and in uncharted waters. The internet, social media, and artificial intelligence, are tools that could be used to deal with our precarious situation. The "why" of this is clear; we are trying to prevent the destruction of life on Earth. The "how" is accomplished by changing people's minds. And this begins with the readers changing their own minds. We must meditate and use cognitive methods to remove fear from our central nervous systems. When we do that, it is like turbocharging. We become smarter, more effective people. 

Obviously, leaders of countries won't voluntarily relinquish the perceived power of atomic bombs. Thus, we need a movement, and it has to be bigger and stronger than any movement in human history. And I invite Silicon Valley leaders to initiate this. The alternative is that human beings will become extinct within another few decades.


THE PUBLIC EYE: Everything Trump Touches Dies

Bob Burnett
Sunday September 09, 2018 - 05:27:00 PM

Recently, I read the best-seller, "Everything Trump Touches Dies" (http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Everything-Trump-Touches-Dies/Rick-Wilson/9781982103125 ) by Rick Wilson -- a noted Republican consultant and strategist, and #nevertrump stalwart. It's alternately terrifying and hilarious. At the conclusion Wilson offers suggestions for the "recovery" of the Republican Party. They are worth considering for what they suggest for the Democratic Party. 

A Party of Hope, not Hate: Wilson says, "Republicans need to become a party of militant optimism about the future. Right now we are a party of doom and gloom..." 

Of course, this is a knock on Trump's perspective: "Make America great again" and "We're losing everywhere..." But it's also a reminder that Democrats have to offer a positive agenda. It's not enough to run against Trump and Republican corruption, in general. Democrats must offer a hopeful message that says, in essence, the United States is a prosperous country and it's possible for everyone to share this prosperity. 

Reform from within: Wilson warns about political corruption and advises the GOP to adopt: "strict ethics rules for elected Republicans..." and forbidding "members of Congress from lobbying after they leave. We need to tighten up financial disclosure rules so members voting on legislation that benefits their own bottom line face sanctions." These are prudent suggestions and Democrats would be well advised to adopt them. 

The Constitutional Operating System: Wilson notes, "Republicans need to restore the divisions between the three branches of government. Under Trump, Congress has abandoned its role as a coequal branch and acted like a Trump houseboy." 

Talk Main Street -- And mean it: Wilson wrote, "The vast and increasing disparity in wealth in this nation has been shrugged off by Republicans... We've been parties to bleeding dry the middle class in this country, confusing "good for business" with "good for people." Amen. 

If the GOP is the Party that's "good for business," then Democrats have to be clearly identified as the Party that's "good for people." 

The Rule of Law: Wilson observes, "[Trump's] constant attempts to obstruct justice in the Mueller investigation with only the slightest pushback from Republicans are so dangerous that we haven't even seen the possible scope of the damage yet... a commitment to restoring respect for the law is fundamental." Another amen. 

Democrats have to be clearly identified as the Party that carries forward the vision of the Founders. 

Build a diverse Party: Wilson spoke to the GOP, "By increasing our ideological diversity we'll expand the places we can compete, offer Americans more choices in more communities, and enrich the scope of candidates who enter politics. With that in mind, it's time to make real efforts to recruit African American, Hispanic, and female candidates..." 

Republicans would be well advised to listen to what Rick Wilson has to say. At the moment, Democrats are more welcoming to women and racial/ethnic minorities. But, we also have to be accepting of ideological differences. 

Purge racists, conspiracy nuts, and lunatics from our ranks: Wilson writes, "the Republican Party has a race problem and pretending it doesn't exist has become impossible... the single greatest risk to conservatism, the Republican party, and the nation is if the alt-right virus spreads deeper into the political system." Wilson adds, "Conservative authors, news outlets, and broadcasters need to outgrow the fever swamp of conspiracy and madness." Wow. Rick Wilson calls out Republican crazy. 

Decency, humanity, and tolerance: Wilson observes, "The fashionable cruelty of the Trump era... aren't the character of a president or of a party deserving of respect and support... The increasingly hideous tone of the GOP is a long-term brand killer." Yeah. 

Respect and honor American institutions: Wilson writes, "Donald Trump is wrecking our institutions in ways more corrosive, insidious, and permanent than the wildest visions of our worst enemies... Trump has corrupted and broken the entire idea of the American presidency." 

Wilson continues, "Restoring faith in institutions rests on accountability." Democrats must become the accountability Party, politicians with the highest ethical standards. 

Govern like grown-ups: Wilson notes, "Trump's raging, vulgarian insult-comic shtick wore thin for most Americans during the campaign... [nonetheless] for far too many Republicans the desire to emulate Trump as a play to the base was all too tempting." 

Wilson prescribes: "The House and Senate leadership must... discipline their members in areas ranging from ethics to affect." 

Kill crony capitalism: Rick Wilson writes, "Americans know and feel that the deck is stacked against them when it comes to Washington offering the biggest, wealthiest, and most irresponsible players the power to define markets, protect themselves from risk, and leave taxpayers with the bill. It's time to stop it." Amen. 

If Democrats are truly the Party that's "good for people," they must stop all aspects of crony capitalism. 

Stop fighting the last wars: With regards to issues such as gay marriage and marijuana use, Wilson observes: "It's time to tell the evangelical cohort in the GOP that that since they've shown their true colors by giving Donald Trump a series of mulligans on his port-star-screwing, pussy-grabbing, serially adulterous life, they've lost their moral authority to scream at the rest of us." We can only hope that the adults within the GOP evangelicals will read Wilson's book and change their behavior. 

While this is an impressive list, there are (at least) two more suggestions that all Democrats would do well to consider. We can't continue to spend so much on "defense." In 2018 the U.S. spent more than $600 billion on defense spending; more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, and Japan combined. That's ridiculous. 

We must take action to head off the impact of climate change. This seems so obvious that it amazing that it has to be mentioned. But it does. Trump doesn't believe in climate change and the GOP has followed his lead. 

By the way, everything Trump touches dies. 

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

ECLECTIC RANT: No one should care about John Yoo’s Views on Brett Kavanaugh

Ralph E. Stone
Sunday September 09, 2018 - 05:13:00 PM

In a September 3, 2018 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, “Brett Kavanaugh won’t be pawn of Trump, predicts GOP stalwart John Yoo,” Yoo, a former Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration and now Professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law, states that we should not fear that Kavanaugh will go easy on Trump if he is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, Yoo is just not a credible witness for Kavanaugh.

Note that Yoo did not mention, if confirmed, Kavanaugh would likely work to preserve the Trump agenda for decades to come on such issues as abortion, gun control, immigration, voting rights, campaign-finance laws, health care, LGBTQ rights, unions, and the power of regulatory authorities, especially on the environment. Why else would Trump nominate him? 

As the article mentioned, Yoo continues to be on the hot seat for his strained interpretation of unitary executive theory (memo 1, memo 2), to justify “enhanced interrogation techniques” which included stress positions, sleep deprivation, and simulated drowning known as “waterboarding.”  

In addition, these memos argued that criminal law doesn't prohibit torture because it doesn't apply to the military; Treaties and the War Crimes Act don't prohibit torture because they only apply to uniformed enemy soldiers, and federal statutes prohibiting torture don't prohibit torture because they don't apply to conduct on military bases. 

In 2003, following the accounts of the torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Yoo wrote another memo concluding "that federal laws against torture, assault and maiming would not apply to the overseas interrogation of terror suspects." This was used as justification for the abusive treatment of prisoners at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp. 

Then in 2014, Yoo sent an email to the Chronicle criticizing the release of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence torture report, claiming the report failed to maintain "bipartisanship" that "will undermine its conclusions.” A careful reading of the Torture Report reveals why he was concerned about its release as it shows the dire consequences his memos had by laying a "legal" basis for the U.S. use of torture. 

A Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility report took issue with Yoo’s dubious legal conclusions justifying the use of torture. The report concluded that Yoo had "committed 'intentional professional misconduct' when he advised the CIA it could proceed with waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al-quaeda suspects," although the recommendation that he be referred to his state bar association for possible disciplinary proceedings was overruled by David Margolis, another senior Justice department lawyer. 

Is torture making a comeback? During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump said he would consider bringing back waterboarding “and a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” And “Bloody” Gina Haskel was nominated by Trump and confirmed as Director of the CIA. Haskel was a senior official overseeing a secret CIA “extrajudicial rendition program” that subjected dozens of suspected terrorists to savage interrogations, which included depriving them of sleep, squeezing them into coffins, and waterboarding,. I guess, to some, torture is forgivable and those who justified torture are to be forgiven and to be taken seriously. 

During the hearings on Kavanaugh’s nomination, Senators should disregard Yoo’s comments for what they are, a blatant attempt to color his Yale Law School classmate and longtime friend as an unobjectionable nominee. Remember Kavanaugh was vetted by the conservative Federalist Society, of which Yoo is a member, and was nominated by Trump to help carry out his agenda.  



ON MENTAL ILLNESS: Antidepressants May Not Mix Well with Antipsychotics

Jack Bragen
Sunday September 09, 2018 - 05:31:00 PM

In this week's column, please note that I am not offering you a professional opinion. I am sharing my experiences, and if you have questions about medications, you must consult with a medical and/or psychiatric practitioner.

My mental health and my behavior improved following discontinuation of antidepressants, which I took in addition to antipsychotics. Antidepressants do not do the exact opposite of antipsychotics. However, the combination of these two categories of drugs can be bad from a medical-physical standpoint, and it can cause people with psychotic tendencies to become ill. I suggest that readers do research about this on the web, and/or by discussing it with doctors.

A person taking antipsychotics will often feel depressed. Antipsychotic medications can cause depression. However, life circumstances can also cause depression. It is not always easy to know if one's depression is caused by antipsychotics, by difficult life circumstances, or by the brain condition itself. 

I was told at one point that there is such a thing as "post-psychotic depression." This is probably the brain rebounding from psychosis, and is the brain trying to repair itself, as soon as the owner of the brain becomes stabilized on antipsychotics. 

A test to see if a schizophrenic person is depressed due to bad life circumstances could be to give the person some form of gratification, and see if the person is still depressed. Gratification is often efficacious. For some reason, it seems that treatment practitioners do not want to offer us any gratification. This is in keeping with the concept that we need to be punished, and that is supposed to make us well.  

A "meaningful relationship" is a desire of many mentally ill people. Some, however, aren't ready to handle this, even though they may badly want it. In this case, gratification can be sought in other areas of life. Obtaining employment and earning money is an example of this. Or, sometimes, a game of ping-pong, watching a movie one wants to see, or going out to dinner, are things that can get a person outside of their "shell" and outside of oneself, and this can relieve depression. 

However, my main point in this week's column is to say that antidepressants often aren't good for people who suffer from psychosis. They can counteract antipsychotics, and/or they can worsen the condition. I don't know a lot about "Serotonin Syndrome." However, it seems to be caused by a bad mix of medication. Apparently, it involves a buildup of serotonin, which is potentially fatal. I suggest that the reader research that, or ask their treatment practitioner about it. 

The depression caused by antipsychotics can be addressed in other ways. A cup of coffee or tea in the morning is helpful--although I do not advise an excessive amount of caffeine. Physical movement (I am not going to call it "exercise" since the word brings up negative thoughts for some people) is helpful. Washing a sink full of dirty dishes can be therapeutic. Taking a shower, brushing your teeth, and so on, can improve mood. Mental activity, such as reading, doing a crossword puzzle, or playing a game of Monopoly, or Scrabble, can help. 

Depression that follows a psychotic episode may be temporary, and may dissipate over a period of a few months. Depression due to life circumstances can be addressed by taking actions to make circumstances better. In this case, antidepressants will only mask the problem. 

Some people must have an antidepressant, and I do not dispute that. However, antidepressants for someone subject to psychosis, some of the time, can make problems worse. Again, these are not professional opinions; and if you are in doubt, talk to your treatment professional.

SMITHEREENS: Reflections on Bits & Pieces

Gar Smith
Sunday September 09, 2018 - 05:35:00 PM

Algorithms Awry

Have you had this experience? You write to your elected rep about some foreign policy issue and you get a reply like this?

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for contacting me regarding marine finfish aquaculture. I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. . . .

I won't name the senator involved. 

RISE Up Singing . . . for the Climate! 

On September 8, a major demonstration and march will greet world leaders convening in San Francisco to address the challenges of climate change and the promises of post-carbon/post-military economies. Organizers of the Rise for Climate, Jobs, & Justice march are promising "the largest climate mobilization the West Coast has ever seen to demand Governor Jerry Brown and other elected officials take real action on climate change." 

Taking on the trappings of a Broadway show, the mass gathering will also debut its own hit tunes, courtesy of the Thrive Street Choir and Peace Poets. 

"We will gearing up for a Choral Flashmob—largest singing climate mobilization in history!" says GreenFaith organizer Kyle Lemie. The event will begin with the crowd kneeling to plant their hands on the Earth before rising to their feet and bursting into song. "Imagine 50,000 people singing this song together to start the march," Lemile grins. 

Here's a sample of what's to come: 


More info: www.greenfaith.org and 350.org

Boeing: Bombing the Planet and Proud of It? 

The Boeing aerospace company is one of the major arms makers (and people-killers) on our planet. Perhaps you've seen the company's ads on NBC's Nightly News and on the Public Broadcasting Network. But have you looked closely at the imagery and pondered what Boeing's intended message is? Ostensibly, the advert is an invitation to watch an online history of "The Age of Aerospace." (You can watch all eight episodes here). 

The animated TV ad ends with the image of Earth, as viewed from space. The land below is covered with clouds, so you can't identify any specific spot on Earth. But what you can see is a large explosion of light that illuminates the clouds from beneath. What is that supposed to represent, Boeing? A raging wildfire? Carpet bombing? A nuclear detonation (perhaps from a B61-12 nuclear bomb equipped with a Boeing tail kit and delivered via a Boeing Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile)? 

WWW: The Weird Wild Web 

Strange things are happening on the Internet these days. For instance, a major federal website is renting out ads to the NRA crowd. 

I recently hopped over to GovTrack.us—the official government website used to check the trajectory of a piece of legislation. I was searching for info on H.R.5515, the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (aka the Pentagon War Budget), so I was surprised to find myself looking at a paid ad for the gun lobby. 

Smack in the middle of the first screen-page a photo showed a hand pulling a pistol from a holster, alongside the headline: "Where Can I Carry? Download Your Map To Discover Every States Gun Laws." The ad space was paid for by the USCCA—the US Concealed Carry Association. 

Here's an online video explaining why the Feds thought the USCCA's call for packing concealed weapons was a worthy enterprise to publicize on GovTrack: 


Trump's Trumped-up Media Survey 

Clicking your laptop to watch NBC Nightly News on August 2, 2018 would have unleashed an unexpected pop-up ad from the "Certified Website Of President Donald J. Trump." The ad annouced a "Mainstream Media Accountability Survey"—a public assessment of the Trump presidency that quickly revealed itself to be a partisan tool designed to buck up Der Trump's complaint that the "Mainstream Fake News Media" is biased against him. 

Let's look at some of the survey's 20 "fair and balanced" questions, shall we? 

"Do you trust MSNBC to fairly report on our presidency?" 

"Do you trust CNN to fairly report on our presidency?" 

"Do you trust Fox News to fairly report on our presidency?" 

"Do you believe that the mainstream media actually cares about working Americans?" 

"Do you trust the mainstream media to tell the truth about the Republican Party's positions and actions?" 

"Do you believe that the media unfairly reported on Trump's executive order temporarily restricting people entering our country from nations compromised by radical Islamic terrorism?" 

"Do you believe that the media is engaging in a witch hunt to take down President Trump?" 

"Do your believe that people of faith have been unfairly characterized by the media?" 

"Do you believe that the media has been far too quick to spread false stories about our movement?" 

"Do you believe that the media has turned a blind eye to Planned Parenthood's worst actions?" 

"Do you believe that the media uses slurs rather than facts to attack conservative stances on issues like border control, religious liberties, and ObamaCare?" 

"Do you agree with the President Trump's media strategy to cut through the media's noise and deliver our message straight to the people?"
(At the end of the survey, visitors are invited to sign up for monthly donations to Trump—ranging from $35 to $2,700 a month. Worth noting: This solicitation appears to be a violation of https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/>Federal law, which limits individual donations to Candidate Committees to no more than $2,700 per year!) 

Zinke Blows His Top and Spills the Beans 

It's a little-acknowledged fact that the Pentagon exists, in large measure, to seize foreign oil resources—and control access to critical shipping lanes that provide the oil the US needs to power its wars for oil. 

Well, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke just let the oil-soaked cat out of the over-stuffed Pentagon bag. At a right-wing Freedom Conference meeting in Colorado in mid-August, a lefty infiltrator named Sallie Holmes stood up to ask Zinke why he refused to acknowledge the reality of climate change. 

Zinke was so flustered that he shot back: "You know what? You haven't served and you don't understand what energy is. I'd like to see your child have to fight for energy!" 

"So it's out there," Holmes observed (after being booted—and booed—from the meeting). "It's all about energy and that's why they need to pillage public lands"—and fight for energy by invading foreign lands. 

No Reign on His Parade 


Donald "Cadet Bone Spur" Trump's much-derided military parade has been postponed (after the estimated cost exploded from $12 million to $92 million). But the massive counter-demonstrations it prompted—including a peace parade, concerts and other activities planned to honor the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day (a date intended to commemorate peace and an end to war)—are still on schedule for November 10-11. More information is available at  

To further mark the passing of the "Trumparade," here's a look back at a 1967 Armed Forces Day Parade held in New York City. Worth noting: At second 26, a "colorful float" appears that is topped by an odd sculpture resembling a militarized cockroach. It also seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to Donald J. Trump. 


The Shocking Shucking of "Shock and Awe" 

First they came for Costa-Gavras's film Capital and now Rob Reiner's Shock and Awe has taken a hit. Both movies have been denied a theatrical release. 

I just watched the trailer for Shock and Awe and it appears to be a taut, well-scripted drama with a "star-studded" cast that is strong and "marketable." (Maybe not as stellar as Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep, but close.) See what you think: 


A search of the Chronicle's movie guide reveals no screenings of Shock and Awe anywhere in the Bay Area. Despite the fact that the film was officially released on July 13, a search of Rotten Tomatoes finds no mention of the film. The fact that the movie brought in only a bit over $77,000 in its first week of release suggests its screenings have been limited. 

I wrote a Daily Planet article about this apparent censorship problem back in 2014 when Costa-Gavras' Capital was refused admission to US movie theaters. 

From my conversations with distributors and local theater owners, it appeared that Costa-Gavras' film failed to gain screen time because the distributors failed to pony up sufficient cash to buy big ads in the local papers. This "entry fee," I was told, frequently determines what films are -- and aren't -- seen by the American public. It also explains why the same half-dozen, big-bucks, major-studio releases appear simultaneously, blanketing the Bay Area with scores of simultaneous screenings every day of the week. 

Shock and Awe looks like a timely and important film. But is the message too "toxic"? After all, it shows how the country was "lied into war" over a non-existent threat from Iraq -- and it shows how most of the US media went along with the charade without exercising the due diligence that is the mark of a free press. 

Sure, we are still living in the Age of Cover-ups but must this also apply to movie-going? Hollywood has been notoriously pro-war through most of its history but is Big Bro now putting a bigger clamp on filmmakers who raise justifiable questions about government power and manipulation? Has the Big Screen become part of the Big Scam? It is troubling that nobody in America can buy a ticket to watch this film in a movie theater. In the meantime, you can watch the film on DIRECTV. 

Who's Been Hacking the Pentagon?  

And the United Nations? 

In the course of researching a story about the growing US military presence on the African continent, I tried to tap into the Pentagon's official AFRICOM website. And I got the following alert: 


This website may be impersonating "www.africom.mil" to steal your personal or financial information. You should go back to a previous page." 

I don't know whether this is a spoof or not but it sure works to discourage inquiring minds from exploring the activities of AFRICOM online. 

And it's not just the DoD's AFRICOM adventures that are currently off-limits. An attempt to track down some related information from The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights produced this result: 


Attackers might be trying to steal your information from www.ohchr.org (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more. 


Curiously, in the webpage's contact line, the url's security code—"https"—was crossed out in red font, alongside the words "Not Secure." 

As of August 28, ALL of the Human Rights Organization's web links continued to be blocked. 

Is Elon Musk All Thumbs? 

After a series of unexpected, destabilizing tweets, some of Elon Musk's close friends offered the following advice. "One good rule of thumb: Never make important decisions through Twitter." Given the way most people Tweet away the day on Smartphones, that advice should probably be described as a good "rule of thumbs."

Arts & Events

The Berkeley Activist's Calendar: Sept. 9-16

Kelly Hammargren, Sustainable Berkeley Coalition
Sunday September 09, 2018 - 05:17:00 PM

Worth Noting:

Monday Tax the Rich Rally celebrates its seventh anniversary. It was started by Evelyn Glaubman in 2011. Evelyn (who still attends) does not wish to disclose her age, but the secret is she was not yet, but close to 90 when she started the weekly rally. That reminds all of us there are no excuses for not being engaged. We could say it was the 40% of eligible voters who did not vote in 2016 that gave us this corrupt administration with Donald Trump at the top.

The weekly summary of upcoming City meetings is thick as the Agenda Committee meets Monday to plan for September 25 City Council meeting and City Council meets Thursday (Yom Kippur begins Tuesday evening). Potential controversial items in the Council action calendar are highlighted.

Wednesday Burrowing Owls at Cesar Chavez Park are on the agenda of the Parks and Waterfront Commission and the Police Review Commission (PRC) includes the Berkeley Police Department actions in response to August 5 protests. Thursday the Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC) will be discussing the 350.org Climate Mobilization Plan

There are events and forums planned before and during the Global Climate Action Summit (GCAS) (September 12 – 14) http://globalclimateactionsummit.org. including a forum on Tuesday September 11 with a very impressive list of international presenters. Counter forums and demonstrations are listed at the Sunflower Alliance website http://www.sunflower-alliance.org/


September 20, 2018 - Public Hearings – Appeals,  

749 Contra Costa Ave (addition to SFD) (ZAB), 

Campanile Way View (LPC) 


Sunday, September 9, 2018 

Oakland Pride with Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Sun, Sept 9, 10:30 am – 7:00 pm, https://www.oaklandpride.org/ 

Solano Stroll, Sun, Sept 9, 9:00 am Stroller Brigade - 10:00 am,  


Monday, September 10, 2018 

Agenda Committee, Mon, Sept 10, 2:30 pm – 3:30 pm, 2180 Milvia, 6th Floor Redwood Conf Room, Agenda plan for Sept 25 City Council Meeting: Consent 2. Grant, Measure B and BB paratransit revenus, Easy Does It, Friendly Transportation, 3. Sale Redevelopment Properties 1631and 1654 Fifth St, 4. Contract amendment $70,000, Sloan, Sakai, Yeung & Young LLP Chief Labor Negotiations, 7. Contract amendment $800,000-$2 million Nichols Civil-engineering, 8. Contract $65,000 Cadmus EV roadmap, 9. Contract amendment $100,000 Karste Consulting, Inc, Emergency preparedness Services and Training, 10. Contract Amendment $100,000 - $250,000 Citywide After Hours Answering Services, 11. Final Map tract 9787: 2001 Fourth Street 154 unit condominium project, 12. Final Map Tract 8401: 1035-1043 Pardee 5 unit condominium project, 13. Strategic Transportation Plan – to be submitted to County for funding, 14. Zero emission vehicle requirements for City Fleet, 15. Farmers’ Market improvements, changes, 18. Referral Impact parking citations on Disability and low income community, 20. Safe Storage Firearms Ordinance, 21. Support AB-2342 coverage for Breast, Ovarian Cancer susceptibility screening, 22. Opposition Telecom Act forbearance, 23. Traffic circle Vegetation Policy, 24. Game Day Parking, Action: 25. IKE Smart City Kiosks, 26. Standby Officers, 27. Recycling, 28. Green Stormwater Infrastructure, 29 a.&b. Ban on Receipts made with BPA, BPS, BPF, other Phenols, 30 a.&b. Affordable Housing, TemporaryHousing Proposals for 1281 University Ave. 31. A.&b. Small Sites Loan Program, 32. a.&b.path to end homelessness, 33. a.&b. Develop Regional Sanctuary-Community Working group, 34. RV Parking permit process 


Mental Health Commission - Diversity Subcommittee, Mon, Sept 10, 6:00 pm, 1901 Hearst Ave, North Berkeley Senior Center 


Youth Commission, Mon, Sept 10, 6:30 pm, 1730 Oregon St, Martin Luther King Jr. Youth Services Center, Agenda: Youth Retreat, Letter Response to San Pablo Park Shooting 


Tax the Rich rally with Occupella sing along 7 Years on Solano Anniversary Celebration, Mon, Sept 10, 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm top of Solano in front of closed Oaks Theater, The very first Tax the Rich Rally was September 12, 2011. Occupy NYC began the following Saturday in 2011. 

Tuesday, September 11, 2018 – Yom Kippur 

City Council rescheduled to Thursday, Sept 13 

Solano Avenue Business Improvement District Advisory Board, Tue, Sept 11, 11:00 am, 1821 Catalina Ave, Thousand Oaks Baptist Church, Agenda: Grant requests/expenditures, IKE Kiosk 


September 11 - Women’s Assembly for Climate Justice 1:00 pm – 8:30 pm, local and international leaders, free and open to the public, wecaninternational.org/pages/sept2018

Wednesday, September 12, 2018 

Commission on Labor, Wed, Sept 12, 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm, 1901 Hearst Ave, North Berkeley Senior Center, meets every other month, Agenda: Labor Education in Schools, Homeless Youth Policy, Fair Workweek, Paid Family Leave, IWW contract negotiations, Living wage ordinance, ICEm Minimum Wage ordinance 


Homeless Commission, Wed, Sept 12, 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm, 1901 Hearst Ave, North Berkeley Senior Center, - No Agenda posted, check before going 


Human Welfare & Community Action Commission, Wed, Sept 12, 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm, 2939 Ellis St, South Berkeley Senior Center, Agenda: Community Needs Public Hearing Oct. 17, Site visits, CSBG Standards Report and Funding, HWCAC Bylaws,, Subcommittee revisions, Berkeley Funded Agency Programs, Meals Program, Lifeskills Program, 


Parks and Waterfront Commission, Wed, Sept 12, 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm, 2800 Park St, Frances Albrier Community Center, Agenda: Burrowing Owl area Cesar Chavez Park, Tuolumme Camp rebuild, Single Use Food Container, Marina Specific Plan, Updates Marina fiscal issues, Waterfront leases, parking study 


Police Review Commission, Wed, Sept 12, 7:00 pm – 10:00 pm, 2939 Ellis St, South Berkeley Senior Center, Agenda: Subcommittee Reports/Action General orders, Homeless Encampment, Lexipol Policies, Request for information from other City Departments, After-Action reports, Guiding Principles, Body-worn Cameras Policy, BPD response to Protests Aug 5, 2018 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/Commissions/Commissions__Police_Review_Commission_Homepage.aspx 

Thursday, September 13, 2018 

Cannabis Commission, Thurs, Sept 13, 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm, 2180 Milvia St, 6th Floor, Agenda: Caregiver gardens, Berkeley collective regulations, MAUCRSA collective regulations, AUMA regulations 


City Council, Thursday, Sept 13, 6:00 pm – 11:00 pm, 2134 MLK Jr Way, City Council ChambersThe Thursday, September 13, Agenda: Recess: item 2. Winter Shelter extension to Aug 31, Consent: 6.Uptima Business Bootcamp $120,000, 8. Fire Administration approve positions to enhance Fire Dept fire prevention services, billing, collection, grant writing, 9. Seek funding thru SB 840 for Homeless Mentally Ill Outreach and Treatment, 11.establish Resilient Buildings Program Manager, 12. Bay Trail extension, 13. 15 Dock Sections, 14. Central Library Stucco Demolition, 15. Consideration of Accessibility in ADU, 16. Filling Vacancies Human Welfare and Community Action Commission, 17. Live/Work Inclusionary Units, 18. Resolution to support enforcement and mitigate damages from removal of trees at 1698 University, 19. No change to Standards of Inverse Condemnation (Wildfires), Action: 21. Lobbyist Ordinance, 22. ADU Ordinance, 23. Eliminating parking from Berkeley Way Project, 24. Cannabis, 25. Disposition MOU between BPD and ICE. 26. a.&b. Vehicle Encampment, 27. Enforcement Policy Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza – no lying, camping, obstruction, etc. 28. Urban Forest and Wildlife Habitat Preservation, 29. Limiting Publishing Photos (doxing) of people arrested by BPD, 30. Green Monday, 31. Standby Officers Qualifications


Community Environmental Advisory Commission, Thurs, Sept 13, 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm, 1901 Russell St, Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch Library, Agenda: 350.org Climate Mobilization Plan, Lead Paint Resolution, Microfiber, CO2 Label Gas stations, Global Climate Action Summit 


Friday, September 14, 2018 

City Reduced Service Day 

Saturday, September 15, 2018 

Berkeley Progressive Alliance – District 7 Endorsement Meeting, Sat, Sept 15, 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm, 1939 Addison, East Bay Media Center, 


International Shoreline Cleanup, Sat, Sept 15, 9:00 am – 12:00 pm, Shorebird Park Nature Center 


Music in the Park | Family Concerts Grove Park, Sat, Sept 15, 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm, 


Sunday, September 16, 2018 

No City Events Found 



The meeting list is posted in the Berkeley Daily Planet under Berkeley Activist’s Calendar 



The meeting list is also posted on the Sustainable Berkeley Coalition website. 



When notices of meetings are found that are posted after Friday 5:00 pm they are added to the website schedule https://www.sustainableberkeleycoalition.com/whats-ahead.html and preceded by LATE ENTRY 


Wish to engage in campaigns to flip Republican Congressional Districts, local, state and national events check Indivisible Berkeley https://www.indivisibleberkeley.org/actions and Wellstone Democratic Club, http://wellstoneclub.org