In a five-minute meeting late yesterday afternoon, three members of the board of the Berkeley Unified School District approved a last-minute deal with the developers of 2211 Harold Way. According to BUSD public information officer Mark Coplan, present and voting to drop the district's appeal on the project permits were board members Judy Appel, President,Karen Hemphill, Clerk, and Ty Alper. Josh Daniels and Beatriz Leyva-Cutler were absent.

Berkeley High parent Dr. James McFadden told the Planet that he attempted to attend and speak in a public comment period as the Brown Act specifies, but found the building which housed the board locked when he attempted to enter between 5:15 and 5:45, the meeting time posted on the District's web site. Coplan said that the meeting was technically not a closed meeting, but no members of the public were in attendance.

Tom Lochner reported in the Bay Area News Group papers that 

"The deal calls for the developer, HSR Berkeley Investments LLC, to address many of the issues related to noise, pollution, traffic, construction hours and others raised in the district's appeal regarding The Residences at Berkeley Plaza, scheduled to be heard by the City Council on Tuesday.

"The agreement is contained in a letter on school district letterhead to the developer's representative Mark Rhoades, signed by HSR. It calls for a list of 11 "Additional Project Applicant Concessions" that the developer would ask the city to include as conditions of approval of the project. If that cannot be done, HSR would commit to the list of concessions by virtue of the agreement, the letter continues."

At 7:49, Mike Zint, coordinator of the "Liberty City" occupation camp at Berkeley's Maudelle Shirek Building (Old City Hall) informed his email list that a raid on the site by presumably local authorities had begun. A helicopter was observed circling over downtown Berkeley. By 10 a.m. the tents had been removed by occupiers, according to news reports.

On Wednesday State Senate candidate Nancy Skinner made her debut at the 2016 Alligators' Ball, a Berkeley tradition which started in 2004 to benefit then City Council candidate Laurie Capitelli. For the full backstory, see Down at the Alligator’s Ball. Hosts this year were developer Patrick Kennedy, developer’s shill Mark Rhoades and Downtown Business Association honchos John Caner and Susie Medak.

Observed in attendance: Councilmember Susan Wengraf, now near the end of her current term, and announced mayoral candidate Capitelli, accompanied by attorney Steven Murphy, who is rumored to be running to replace Capitelli in District 5.

Proceeds of the festivities, held at a North Shattuck bar, will go to Skinner’s campaign treasury—she’s running against Sandre Swanson for the seat now held by Loni Hancock (who has endorsed Swanson.) Tickets went for up to $4200.00.  

There's no official word on what favors the alligators will expect in return for their contributions.

In a new tradition, a few straggly carolers serenaded the incoming guests with versions of popular carols updated for current events. The musicians said they hoped to appear at many holiday events in downtown Berkeley in the next few weeks and invited others to join them in song. Singing ability is not a must.

Police arrested a 51-year-old man Monday in connection with the robbery and attempted sexual assault of a female University of California at Berkeley student. 

Around 11:30 a.m., the student was walking near Arch and Virginia streets near campus when a suspect approached her from behind and pushed her off the public walkway and into a secluded, grassy area, according to police. 

The suspect then pinned the victim on the ground and covered her mouth as she attempted to scream, then attempted to sexually assault her, police said. 

The suspect stole the victim's cellphone and identification before fleeing the area, according to police. 

Officers responded to the scene and located the suspect walking on Hearst Avenue near Walnut Street. Police have identified him as Wilfred Allen, a transient. 

Officers found Allen to be in possession of the victim's property. He was arrested on suspicion of robbery, kidnapping, attempted sexual assault and probation violation, police said. 

Allen has been booked into Berkeley City Jail and the case will be forwarded to the Alameda County District Attorney's office for possible charges, according to police. 

Anyone with information about the incident is asked to contact the Berkeley Police Department's special victims unit at (510) 981-5735. Callers who wish to remain anonymous can call Bay Area Crime Stoppers at (800) 222-8477.

The only guy, just one, who spoke in favor of the new two square feet law at the Berkeley City Council on December 1^st, gave an unexpected compliment to the ongoing protest withstanding the freezing weather in front of old City Hall in Berkeley on Martin Luther King Jr. Way for having strict behavioral standards.

“This town needs to have standards,” insisted Eric Panzer of Livable Berkeley, a booster group for all things developer-friendly. His compliment to the protest group which began its demonstration with a sleep-in on November 16^th and included local activists, city workers, and clergy, did not go unnoticed by the wide-eyed council or by attorney Osha Neumann, who was next in line to speak and invited him to endorse the newly named Liberty City protest more formally.

Many of the Berkeley community have done just that. Around 75 people gathered in front of the old City Hall building to share stories, music, food, and march together for just over a mile to the Longfellow Middle School being used for the Berkeley City Council meeting, a larger hall than the tight 123 seat capacity of the usual council chambers. 

Liberty City has a large “No Drugs or Alcohol” sign prominently displayed by their circle of colorful tents and has now received its third warning from the Berkeley Police Department recommending that it take advantage of local shelters, etc. Their supporters spoke for hours at the Council meeting trying to stop the second reading of what most already knew could perhaps be delayed but certainly had the votes it needed to become another layer of Berkeley’s anti-homeless laws. 

The best quote of the night heard over an auditorium reverberating with chants and stomping was Vice Mayor and Council Chair Linda Maio’s plaintive defense that the two square foot law would not be used until storage was made available, and that “they are really big bins.” 

Really big bins. The photographs of rows of ugly plastic garbage bins used in San Diego and elsewhere in lieu of honestly providing low income housing never has quite the desired effect on people who wish to convince themselves that criminalizing having more than two square feet of possessions (shopping carts and blankets excepted, or so Maio claims) among other idiocies is somehow okay. Mayor Tom Bates, recovering from a fracture at home, was present over a phone system and sounded like he was gargling. 

The city councilmembers who opposed the measures tried valiantly to craft substitute motions – Councilmember Arreguin tried to add a directive making currently locked bathrooms open all night and expand the possessions footprint to four square feet while Councilmember Worthington kept getting shut down by Maio who seemed terrified of letting him speak at all. The vote apparently took place while the room rocked, at least three members of the City Council were locked in various arguments, and the clock ran out. 

That’s how democracy happens in Berkeley. The last time anti-homeless laws passed in Berkeley with this same cast of characters the ordinance was overturned by a people’s referendum and then put before voters who turned it down. So who does the Berkeley City Council majority represent? At least one guy, the Downtown Berkeley Association’s CEO John Caner who wrote the initial law (with Maio and Arreguin) in a back room, felt represented in all the madness. And he didn’t have to say a word. 

The San Francisco Silent Film Festival will showcase a few of the era’s most intriguing stars at its annual winter event Saturday, December 5, at the Castro Theatre.

The event kicks off at 11 a.m. with Douglas Fairbanks in The Black Pirate, continues at 3 p.m. with escape artist Harry Houdini in The Grim Game, and concludes with a 9:15 p.m. screening of Piccadilly starring Asian-American actress Anna May Wong. In between these screenings will be a program of documentary footage from turn-of-the-20th-century China at 1 p.m. and a French fantasy, L’ Inhumaine, at 6:30 p.m..  

Douglas Fairbanks made a name for himself between 1916 and 1920 with a string of breezy, acrobatic comedies in which genial, dapper Doug took on the world with gusto and a good-natured smile. He was the can-do, all-American boy, a variation on the same theme adopted by Harold Lloyd in his own screen comedies.  

Fairbanks’ ambition expanded in1920 with the creation of United Artists, an independent company he co-founded with Mary Pickford, D.W. Griffith, and Charlie Chaplin, that would give the artists greater control over the creation and distribution of their work. 

Fairbanks’ notion was to merge his athletic brand of comedy with costume drama. He ditched the modern clothes for period attire, donning the garb of musketeers and pirates. Abandoning the casual spontaneity of his rapid-fire comedies, he made fewer films — just one or two a year, down from four or five — with greater production values, more complex plots, more costumes, more sets, more drama. Fairbanks had found a new formula, and he would stick with it for the greater part of a decade, enjoying great commercial success.  

There were naysayers, however. Some critics bemoaned the loss of brisk, breezy Doug; they complained that the jaunty Fairbanks of the 1910s had become a stately, costumed, dramatic figure, his devil-may-care charm and athleticism only coming to the fore in the his films’ closing sequences.  

Fairbanks may have felt the same way, for in 1926 he began edging back toward comedy. The Black Pirate shows him costumed and swashbuckling as usual, but the old Doug is back in action; the film does not take itself too seriously and is full of stunts, smiles, and much broad, comic acting.  

The screening will feature Alloy Orchestra performing their original score.  

Saturday’s festival also spotlights one of Fairbanks’ former co-stars. As an Asian-American actress, Anna May Wong was forced to endure years of typecasting, playing every Asian stereotype in Hollywood’s stockpile of clichés, including a role in Fairbanks’ Thief of Baghdad. These performances brought her fame and fortune, but ultimately she left for Europe in search of better roles.  

She landed one, perhaps her best, in director E.A. Dupont’s Piccadilly (1929).Wong plays a cold, ambitious nightclub dancer, by turns manipulative and vulnerable, who becomes an irresistible object of desire for the club’s owner. Though the interracial romance was censored, the disaster wrought by Wong’s femme fatale remains intact as jealously and bloodshed bring the film to a noirish conclusion. 

Harry Houdini must have seemed an obvious candidate for movie stardom. Famous as a vaudeville performer and as a daredevil stuntman, he was a born showman. Though he was limited as an actor, his appeal is readily apparent in The Grim Game (1919), a film thought lost until a private collector’s print was recently restored. Short and rugged with piercing eyes, Houdini comes across as an earlier generation's version of Edward G. Robinson, handsome in an unlikely way, tough and scowling, but able to convey a certain benevolent humor and grace.  

During the making of The Grim Game(1919), two planes collided in mid-air, leading the producers to re-write the script around the material. For decades the only fragment of the film known to exist showed this accident, and though the filmmakers claimed that Houdini himself was hanging from the plane and narrowly survived the accident, the techniques that sustained the illusion are no more convincing today than they were then.  

Despite his fame, Houdini's acting career was not a success. It turned out that the art of the escape required a flesh-and-blood performance to hold an audience's attention; cinema, with all its sleight-of-hand editing and shifting camera angles, robbed Houdini's stunts of their veracity and sense of danger. If an audience wanted grace and daring and swashbuckling charm, they had Fairbanks; if they wanted dangerous stunt work, cinematically presented and with no editing gimmickry, they had Buster Keaton. Though Houdini was one of the most famous men of his time, his fans preferred to see him not larger than life on the big screen, but on the stage, life size and all the more compelling for that fact that he was real. 

Donald Sosin will accompany The Grim Game and Picadilly on piano.  

For tickets and information, see silentfilm.org.

The sobering insight that climate change can accelerate violence should weigh heavily on the minds of delegates to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change set to begin November 30 in Paris—a city that, on November 13, suffered grievously from the blowback of the Syrian conflict. But there is another looming threat that needs to be addressed.

Put simply: War and militarism also fuel climate change. 

On November 8, the World Bank predicted that climate change is on track to drive 100 million people into poverty by 2030. And, in March, a National Geographic study linked climate change to the conflict in Syria: "A severe drought, worsened by a warming climate, drove Syrian farmers to abandon their crops and flock to cities, helping trigger a civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people." 

The sobering insight that climate change can accelerate violence should weigh heavily on the minds of delegates to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change set to begin November 30 in Paris—a city that, on November 13, suffered grievously from the blowback of the Syrian conflict. But there is another looming threat that needs to be addressed. 

Put simply: War and militarism also fuel climate change. 

From November 30 to December 11, delegates from more than 190 nations will convene in Paris to address the increasingly visible threats of climate disruption. The 21st Conference of the Parties (aka COP21) is expected to draw 25,000 official delegates intent on crafting a legally binding pact to keep global warming below 2°C. 

But it is difficult to imagine the delegates reaching this goal when one of the largest contributors to global-warming has no intention of agreeing to reduce its pollution. The problem in this case is neither China nor the United States. Instead, the culprit is the Pentagon. 

The Pentagon's Carbon Bootprint 

The Pentagon occupies 6,000 bases in the US and more than 1,000 bases (the exact number is disputed) in 60-plus foreign countries. According to its FY 2010 Base Structure Report, the Pentagon's global empire includes more than 539,000 facilities at 5,000 sites covering more than 28 million acres. 

The Pentagon has admitted to burning 350,000 barrels of oil a day (only 35 countries in the world consume more) but that doesn't include oil burned by contractors and weapons suppliers. It does, however, include providing fuel for more than 28,000 armored vehicles, thousands of helicopters, hundreds of jet fighters and bombers and vast fleets of Navy vessels. The Air Force accounts for about half of the Pentagon’s operational energy consumption, followed by the Navy (33%) and Army (15%). In 2012, oil accounted for nearly 80% of the Pentagon's energy consumption, followed by electricity, natural gas and coal. 

Ironically, most of the Pentagon's oil is consumed in operations directed at protecting America's access to foreign oil and maritime shipping lanes. In short, the consumption of oil relies on consuming more oil. This is not a sustainable energy model. 

The amount of oil burned—and the burden of smoke released—increases whenever the Pentagon goes to war. (Indeed, human history's most combustible mix may well prove to be oil and testosterone.) Oil Change International estimates the Pentagon's 2003-2007 $2 trillion Iraq War generated more than three million metric tons of CO2 pollution per month. 

The Pentagon: A Privileged Polluter 

Yet, despite being the planet's single greatest institutional consumer of fossil fuels, the Pentagon has been granted a unique exemption from reducing—or even reporting—its pollution. The US won this prize during the 1998 Kyoto Protocol negotiations (COP4) after the Pentagon insisted on a "national security provision" that would place its operations beyond global scrutiny or control. As Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat recalled: "Every requirement the Defense Department and uniformed military who were at Kyoto by my side said they wanted, they got." (Also exempted from pollution regulation: all Pentagon weapons testing, military exercises, NATO operations and "peacekeeping" missions.) 

After winning this concession, however, the US Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Accord, the House amended the Pentagon budget to ban any "restriction of armed forces under the Kyoto Protocol," and George W. Bush rejected the entire climate treaty because it "would cause serious harm to the US economy" (by which he clearly meant the U.S. oil and gas industries). 

Today, the Pentagon consumes one percent of all the country's oil and around 80 percent of all the oil burned by federal government. President Barack Obama recently received praise for his Executive Order requiring federal agencies to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, but Obama's EO specifically exempted the Pentagon from having to report its contribution to climate chaos. (As a practical matter, the Pentagon has been forced to act. With battlefield gas costing $400 a gallon and naval bases at risk of flooding from rising seas, the Pentagon managed to trim its domestic greenhouse-gas emissions by 9 percent between 2008-2012 and hopes to achieve a 34 percent reduction by 2020.) 

Climate Chaos: Deception and Denial 

According to recent exposés, Exxon executives knew the company's products were stoking global temperatures but they opted to put "profits before planet" and conspired to secretly finance three decades of deception. Similarly, the Pentagon has been well aware that its operations were wrecking our planetary habitat. In 2014, Pentagon chief Chuck Hagel identified climate change as a "threat multiplier" that will endanger national security by increasing "global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict." As far back as 2001, Pentagon strategists have been preparing to capitalize on the problem by planning for "ice-free" operations in the Arctic—in anticipation of US-Russian conflicts over access to polar oil. 

In 2014, Tom Ridge, George W. Bush's Homeland Security chief, stated flat-out that climate change posed "a real serious problem" that "would bring destruction and economic damage." But climate deniers in Congress continue to prevail. Ignoring Ridge's warnings, a majority of House Republicans hammered an amendment onto the National Defense Authorization bill that banned the Pentagon from spending any funds on researching climate change or sustainable development. "The climate . . . has always been changing," Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va) said dismissively. "[W]hy should Congress divert funds from the mission of our military and national security to support a political ideology?" 

Since 1980, the US has experienced 178 "billion dollar" weather events that have caused more than $1 trillion in damages. In 2014 alone, there were eight "billion dollar" weather calamities. 

In September 2015, the World Health Organization warned climate change would claim 250,000 million lives between 2030 and 2050 at a cost of $2-4 billion a year and a study in Nature Climate Change estimated the economic damage from greenhouse emissions could top $326 trillion. (If the global warming causes the permafrost to melt and release its trapped carbon dioxide and methane gases, the economic damage could exceed $492 trillion.) 

In October 2015 (the hottest October in recorded weather history), BloombergBusiness expressed alarm over a joint study by scientists at Stanford and the University of California at Berkeley that predicted global warning "could cause 10 times as much damage to the global economy as previously estimated, slashing output as much as 23 percent by the end of the century." 

This is more than a matter of "political ideology." 

The Pentagon's role in weather disruption needs to become part of the climate discussion. Oil barrels and gun barrels both pose a threat to our survival. If we hope to stabilize our climate, we will need to start spending less money on war. 

Gar Smith is co-founder of Environmentalists Against War and Editor Emeritus of Earth Island Journal. He is the author of Nuclear Roulette: The Truth about the Most Dangerous Energy Source on Earth (Chelsea Green). Email: gar-smith@earthlink.net

The residents at Redwood Gardens, the HUD (Housing and Urban Development) project on Derby Street for seniors and people with disabilities are again facing issues disturbing their peace of mind and sense of security. The owners recently hired a new on site property manager and her relations with the residents do not look very promising. 

When she came to the project the members of the Resident's Council were interested in getting acquainted and suggested inviting her to their next meeting. Council Co-chairs Eleanor Walden and Gary Hicks sent her and invitation. 

Walden reported to the members on the response. “The newly hired Acting Property Manager, Liana Bates-Hall, just paid me a visit. … In response to our invitation to come to the Residents' Council meeting she categorically refused. She said she had no responsibility to meet with us as 'we don't sign her pay check'. She defined her job solely as carrying out the rules of those who do sign her paycheck. I told her that her responsibility was greater that that in that she was under the direction of the HUD contract as held by CSI and that the residents were part of the conglomerate of participants with whom she needed to work. Her manner was surprisingly adversarial and conveyed an attitude of disrespect for the Residents Council as having no authority. She said we are 'tenants' and have only one duty and that is to 'pay our rent and obey the rules'”. 

Walden further tells of saying that the residents wanted to see her resume, not surprisingly Bates-Hall refused. But she writes “Although I admit to being a bit heavy handed by asking for her resume I don't think it is outrageous. If someone asked for my resume I would be glad to provide it. She is already employed so it will not be held against her and we will know what we have to work with. I hear through my grapevine that she has a military background. And that is exactly how she has come on. Her behavior was a good example of bullying, in my opinion.” 

In the two months she has been there tenants have been increasingly frustrated seeing new rules and changes made with no warning, and with what feels like no concern for their peace of mind and quality of life. People have mentioned various issues, among them a two day notice of mandatory apartment inspection, increases in deposits and fees for various community amenities and replacement of garden furniture without regard to users' comfort. 

Though the tenants might voice complaints, they have little power to affect management practices. Management, on the other hand, can seriously affect the quality of their lives. And management is threatening to do just that. Five of the tenants have received letters from a law firm, Kimball, Tirey & St. John in Walnut Creek, accusing them of harassing the manager, Ms. Bates-Hall, warning them that they could be evicted. Eviction from the project means losing access to low income housing, being reduced to homelessness. For people who are elderly or disabled it would be devastating. 

Each of the five targeted people received somewhat different letters making various charges but basically with the same intent. The five page letter addressed to the co-chair of the Residents' Council Gary Hicks is one example. It begins with the charge that the “tenant organization … has been engaging in conduct which is tantamount to harassment.” The term 'harassment' seems to be rather open to interpretation. Some of the tenants have described their encounters with Ms. Bates-Hall as harassment. 

Mr Hicks, according to the lawyer, “through your affiliation as a member of the Redwood Gardens Residents' Council, have continually, frequently and on a consistent basis harassed her … as well as instigated other residents to do the same, including, but not limited to requesting evidence of her qualifications for her employment position … name-calling her to other residents including but not limited to calling her a bully and making false accusations against her, such as that she was hired by a company with a suspended license”. As a matter of fact this last item came from an article by reporter Lynda Carson in Bay Area Independent Media (Indy Bay), certainly not from Mr. Hicks. 

The lawyer's letter refers to the Lease Agreement stating that a tenant can be evicted for non-compliance which “include(s) … repeated minor violations of this Agreement which disrupt the livability of the project, adversely affect the health or safety of any person or the right of any tenant the quiet enjoyment of the lease premises and related project facilities...” 

People might recall the actions of management last year when they engaged in a massive remodeling process requiring the tenants to move their belongings, stay away from their units in some cases for an extended period of time, and in general creating an extremely stressful situation. Regarding project facilities, they moved a laundry to an inconvenient location and closed off the popular community room for over a year. It seems that it was acceptable for management to “disrupt the livability or the quiet enjoyment of the lease premises”. 

Furthermore, addressing the Resident's Council, the lawyer writes that the fact that some residents disagree with the “disparaging views or actions espoused by your organization … disrupts the livability of the project … (and) disturbs the peace and quiet of other residents ...” 

Several paragraphs are devoted to discussing Ms. Bates-Hall's attendance at meetings. “Her refusal is not grounds to make or express false negative inferences to act as manager of the community and you must cease any and all communications of such views expressed to other residents. 

There are other references to conversations about management among residents. Does this mean that people must surrender the freedom of speech and their right to privacy when moving into the project? 

Basically the charges and accusations made in the letter are easily challenged and the residents do have some access to legal aid. But the underlying message is the reminder that they have no power over their circumstances, they have no choice but to 'pay the rent and obey the rules'. Non compliance can result in 'termination of tenancy'. 

And a final kick, the last paragraph, in bold print, headed with the warning to CEASE AND DESIST . 

To the surprise of almost no one, the good citizens of Berkeley presented quarts, pounds, volumes of evidence proving conclusively that profit figures supplied by the applicant for The Residences at Berkeley Plaza (also known as the Harold Way Alley Project) were phony, perhaps fraudulently so. The Bates controllees voted enthusiastically to rubberstamp the project, of course. One speaker said "the fix is in", and maybe it is. But I never try to explain the Bates council's decisions on the basis of cupidity when stupidity will also do. And to think he sold his soul to the devil, and all he got was a lousy soccer field.

For more factual information about what happened last night, there's an excellent professional report by Tom Lochner in the Bay Area News Group papers:

Berkeley council OK's downtown high-rise project

More from me later...

December 7 UPDATE: If you want to make your voice heard regarding the plan (it's more than a "proposal" now) to build an eighteen-story luxury apartment tower on the site of the Shattuck Hotel, demolishing the Landmark Shattuck Cinemas, tomorrow is your last chance. The action starts at 5:30 at Longfellow School. You are supposed to be able to speak for two minutes, or to yield your turn to someone else. However, the Mayor is infamous for changing the rules at the last minute, so anything is possible. The meeting will probably last into the wee small hours of the morning, or at least until the witching hour, at which point the council majority will do the dirty work in front of anyone who's still there to watch.

December 4 UPDATE: It is more than ironic that as the city is in the throes of a housing/homelessness crisis, the City Council is staging a marathon special meeting next Tuesday to officially kosher a new eighteen story building containing more than 300 luxury apartment units and zero affordable units. They're in a rush because Mark Rhoades, the developer's fixer, has announced that he needs to have a done deal by January 1. 

Meanwhile, the police continue busting the homeless occupation at the Maudelle Shirek Building (Old City Hall). Come to the council meeting on Tuesday (5:30, Longfellow School) and let them know what you think about all this.
 

Procrastination, they say, is the thief of time. And so are holidays, it seems. I’ve spent the whole Thanksgiving weekend enjoying the company of my extensive family and studiously avoiding what I foolishly perceive as my duty to the larger society and to the future. Chances are, many readers have done the same.

Sadly, that’s probably just what our civic masters and mistresses in Berkeley are hoping. T ey’ve crammed a significant amount of essential decision-making into the last two or three meetings of 2015, just when voters are busy wondering how to roast chestnuts without building open fires and engaging in other frivolous winter holiday pursuits.

Thanks to Kelly Hammargren of the Sustainable Berkeley Coalition, you can see just the next week’s worth of important civic events here. This week, for example, on Tuesday, December 1, the council is expected to pass at second reading the Maio-Capitelli ordinance which opponents charge criminalizes the homeless. Protests are expected—if you care, you should come. See last week’s editorial for my opinion on that one.

The situation that’s weighing on my conscience at the moment is the monster now slouching toward downtown Berkeley. I’m making one last attempt to explain to the Berkeley City Council that if they uphold the Zoning Adjustment Board’s decision on the huge project proposed for 2211 Harold Way, they’ll be participating in an enormous give-away of the public good to private financial speculation. It’s obvious to anyone who’s attended any of the hearings, but the City Council has effectively isolated itself from the information so far.

Next week, they’ll attempt to cram years of testimony into an evening’s worth of one-minute sound bytes. They will hold a hearing and possibly make a decision on the project on Tuesday, December 8, starting early at 5:30. The meeting has been moved to a larger auditorium at Longfellow School because they anticipate a big crowd. Opponents have filed four separate appeals, and the applicants have also appealed, looking for even more sweeteners for the sugarplum already on their plate.

Letters emailed to the Berkeley City Council by 5 o’clock today (Monday , November 30) will be delivered to councilmembers in their printed packets. There’s an outside chance that at least some of them read what’s in these packets. You can (and should) also appear in person at the public hearing, but letters from voters are really important.

There’s no time like the present to do what you failed to do in the past, I guess. Here’s my own letter—you’re free to steal from it and even copy verbatim with your own signature if you want. 

Many, many hours of public hearings, pounds of paper and gigabytes of digital evidence on the folly of the project proposed for 2211 Harold Way have been submitted to a variety of your delegated Berkeley agencies in the last couple of years. We’ve attended many such meetings and read most of the materials. As active citizens and experienced businesspeople we are firmly convinced that approving the project in its current form would be a bad deal for Berkeley. 

Why? Here are a few reasons, by no means all: 

A t least $4.2 million in available mitigation fees would be left on the table as extra profit for the would-be developer. Your own consultants told you in March (via their “nexus” study) that asking developers to provide $34,000 per unit for the city’s affordable housing fund would still provide ample profits, and would not cause them to abandon their projects. Many cities in the Bay Area do this or better, as you should be aware. 

So why should Berkeley give former city planning manager Mark Rhoades and his L.A. financier clients a $14,000/unit discount on this particular deal? $14,000 times ~300 units = at least $4,200,000 lost. 

Berkeley can’t afford to lose more than four million dollars! 

During the recession, you lowered the city's mitigation fee from $28,000 to $20,000, leaving $8,000/unit on the table because you didn't want to discourage development. Now, however, we're in a building boom, but even by your own now obsolete standard you've conceded close to two and a half million to this particular applicant for no justifiable reason. 

If Developer #1 gets a deal like this, subsequent applicants may assert a justified legal claim that they should get the same deal. They will be able to charge inappropriate influence by an ex-employee, and might make the charge stick. Berkeley stands to lose many more millions if this happens. 

I attended the ZAB meeting where this low-ball figure was approved, and most ZAB members to their credit were very uncomfortable with it. They were told by city staff that the amount had been set by the council so that their hands were tied. Now it’s up to you as councilmembers to correct your mistake. 

The city needs more affordable housing, low cost housing and family housing, and this project provides none of the above. The original Measure R, which many Berkeleyans supported, specified that a limited number of extra-story buildings would be allowed in downtown Berkeley. It makes no sense that the first one built should be luxury units for rich people. Many studies now show that there’s no “trickle-down” effect in housing—these new tenants won’t be vacating low-priced units already in Berkeley. Instead, they’ll be well-off people coming from San Francisco and all over the world looking for fancy apartments with glamourous views of the Golden Gate. Middle class Berkeley families will be priced out. One commenter called this project “gentrification of transit”—devoting a prime location near BART to homes for high-end commuters who will surely have cars parked somewhere nearby for weekend excursions even if they take the train to work. 

The movie theaters are a major economic engine for downtown Berkeley, they’ll be out of service for a minimum of three years, and they may never come back. ( Remember the Fine Arts Theater, Gaia Bookstore, etc. etc.) The theater plans have shifted in the discussion innumerable times. The latest iteration might bring back small screening rooms with low ceilings in place of the existing beautiful cinemas--if they came back at all. The applicant’s appeal indicates that he even wants to back out of that offer. 

The project offers none of the significant community benefits required for extra-story buildings by the Downtown Plan. The worst insult to our collective intelligence is the consultant’s claim that rebuilding the theaters after demolishing them constitutes a significant community benefit. If that’s the case, perhaps he will next offer to demolish the Berkeley Main Library and rebuild it as condos—that would be a really big benefit, right? Rebuilding the theaters would simply be mitigation of damage the project caused, at best, with no compensation for lost revenue downtown during the years of construction. 

The project labor agreement is not a significant community benefit for Berkeley. PLAs should be a minimum for all new Berkeley projects as a social justice requirement, but this one provides no direct benefit to any Berkeleyans except for those few construction union members who happen to live here. 

The building will endanger the historic Shattuck Hotel, its guests and moviegoers by tunneling under the questionable original tile foundation. No decent geotechnical information has been supplied since putting the theaters below the hotel foundation was proposed. The whole EIR is shoddy--it was never even reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission regarding its effect on adjacent historic resources. 

Construction will endanger and disrupt Berkeley High School and the Berkeley Main Library. Both important Berkeley institutions were essentially ignored in the EIR. The Berkeley Unified School district has filed its separate appeal which explains problems in more detail. 

The building would be an energy disaster. It barely meets the now-obsolete LEED Gold standard, when, if Berkeley is serious about our climate action plan, all new buildings should be Zero Net Energy with gray water recycling and many more up-to-date environmental measures. 

These are only a few of the most obvious errors in this proposal. 

What you should do is cancel any mandate you might have previously enacted for giving Rhoades and his clients a special discount, and then send the project back to ZAB with questions about all of these problems. 

Very truly yours, 

Elisabeth P. O’Malley and Michael H. O’Malley 

District 8 Voters since 1973 

Berkeley employers from 1979 to 2008 

Council District:
Linda Maio 1 lmaio@CityofBerkeley.info
Darryl Moore 2 dmoore@CityofBerkeley.info
Max Anderson 3 manderson@CityofBerkeley.info
Jesse Arreguin 4 jarreguin@CityofBerkeley.info
Laurie Capitelli 5 lcapitelli@CityofBerkeley.info
Susan Wengraft 6 swengraf@CityofBerkeley.info
Kriss Worthington 7 kworthington@CityofBerkeley.info
Lori Droste 8 ldroste@CityofBerkeley.info 

We’ll be posting any good letters we get copies of—there’s already a couple of excellent ones in this issue. 

An open letter to my District 8 councilmember, Lori Droste, sent upon receiving her newsletter this morning:

Lori: This time I am truly shocked that you have appointed to a key commission a person who is a spokesman for San Francisco BARF. Just in case you don't know what Diego Aguilar-Canabal stands for, here's a quote of something he wrote on the BARF list-serv, which I read from time to time:

"Also, Berkeleyside should be publishing an op-ed I sent them soon, basically chastising old people for being dicks in public. (Oct. 1, SF BARF google group, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sfbarentersfed )"

He also made fun of the campaign to save the downtown post office, which he thought would be a good site for an apartment development. (And don't you just love the vulgar sexism of his language, and the ageism of his sentiments?)

Do you think that District 8 voters will support your appointment of this person when they learn about it? As a well-known and long-time public dick in your very own neighborhood I somehow doubt it. 

Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:

As a business owner who chose to invest in an office move to downtown Berkeley more than two years ago, I have observed the community discussion on the proposed high rise development at Harold Way, noting with distress how the proposal has divided friends of good will and intention, and produced little by way of community consensus. As a land use lawyer and teacher let me suggest a solution, not entirely sympathetic to the property developer's perspective, but valid from the City's perspective of meeting public needs.

More than all but two other privately-owned parcels downtown, the 2211 site deserves treatment as a unique community asset. That is because it and the other two sites alone have been reserved for the high-rise development authorized in the downtown plan. High-rise development is promoted, in justification of its inevitable impacts, as the means to provide housing, create housing diversity, and realize investments in public transit. If only three sites downtown are to be permitted for such expansive use, they should serve more than the wealthy elements of the community. The developer's proposal unfortunately is so confined. 

Berkeley should draw from the examples of San Francisco and New York City and approve a project that includes between 30 and 40 percent of its units for those of modest income. Those are the ratios that San Francisco belatedly recognizes as justified to meet the housing needs of the entire community, and to attempt, equally belatedly, to ease the social friction created by that city's prior singular focus on market-rate housing. They also conform to New York City's practice, most recently evident in Mayor De Blasio's success in securing the sale of Stuyvesant Village on terms to ensure that private preference for wealthy rentals not eliminate Village housing for working and semi-professional residents. 

Three practical factors make "mixed residential" the highest and best use of 2211 Harold Way. The first is that all future residents of 2211(and downtown generally) will benefit by sharing their public space with a cross-section of the community. Our colleges make great investments to create this social diversity on their campuses; why should that investment not be extend to residential life afterwards? High-income workers will be better off with teachers or single parents at Berkeley High as their immediate neighbors. 

Second, a mixed residential use project will serve a higher community purpose than providing only for those who can afford monthly rentals in excess of $4,000. A mixed­ residential development makes more justifiable and acceptable the inevitable impacts that the project will entail, not least of which will be the years of disruption at the construction site and its downtown/Berkeley High surroundings. The trade-off, for example, of five rather than ten movie screens might be seen as worthwhile if the outcome concurrently prod uces needed affordable housing and not just that for the wealthy. 

Third, including a diversity of housing needs at 2211 Harold Way ensures that the moderate-income housing will actually get built. Housing fund contributions might make sense in smaller market-rate projects or other jurisdictions, but the hard fact remains that they have yet to produce actual housing in Berkeley. As the New Jersey Supreme Court aptly observed, "Courts do not build housing nor do municipalities. That function is performed by private builders." With an appropriate permit the builder of 2211can create the offsetting modest-income housing concurrently with that for its wealthy residents.* 

The developer will likely respond that 2211Harold Way is its project and that the City should respond to its stated profit-maximization purpose. The final environmental impact report (EIR) on the project includes a refutation of this false premise. If Members of the Council devote attention to any pages in the EIR, let me recommend pages 73-81 of the final, the comments of the retired Director of Long Range Planning at UC Berkeley, whose professional talents and integrity produced the successful approvals of UC Merced and its surrounding community. (The relevant pages are attached here.) As the commenter, Christopher Adams, points out, any development of the property will produce a profit; the City is not obligated to maximize that profit, but instead balance that profit against the project's ability to meet public community needs. 

In conclusion, let me suggest that the City Council approve a project -- one that avoids unnecessary harm such as blemished Campanile Way views -- with sufficient onsite community housing benefit to justify the unavoidable impacts of such intense development. 

The project "objectives" are vague justifications for exploitive development. The benefits of the project are not defined. It is important to read the first project objective with particular care. It states:

"Implement the Downtown Area Plan and Street and Open Space Improvement Plan by leveraging the full development potential under Zoning Ordinance standards in order to generate the revenue necessary to provide all the community benefits envisioned in the Downtown Area Plan plus additional community benefits proposed in the project application and maintaining project financial feasibility [italics added].'' (p. 2-57)

Note the phrases in italics. The applicants want to leverage the full development potential, i.e., extract the maximum height and square footage they can get from the City in order to generate revenue for "all the community benefits envisioned" in the DAP and for "additional community benefits proposed in the project application." 

The "community benefits" in the DAP are not described in the EIR so it is not possible to know what any of them are, much less "all" of them. The project application seems to consist of several separate documents which are not part of the EIR. After reviewing them I was unable to find a description of any "community benefits." 

The final statement in italics "maintaining project financial feasibility” is reasonable but misleading. Financial feasibility means making a reasonable profit; it does not mean the applicant has the right to make the most money possible. In order to be meaningful the EIR should explain what the "benefits" are and should provide an explanation of how each increment of increased leverage relates to benefits. The City is the official preparer of this EIR, and ultimately the City must approve it. The EIR must contain sufficient information so that the City and its Council, ZAB and LPC can determine if, in fact, the necessary overriding considerations are present to justify approval. This requires that the EIR establish the link between the "leverage"· being sought by the applicant and the "benefits" to be gained by the City, and the "benefits" must be defined. The EIR must explain enough so that the City can decide if the project should be approved to obtain "all" the benefits or whether a different or smaller project which generates less revenue and fewer benefits would be better for downtown and for the citizens of Berkeley. As written the EIR is completely deficient in providing this essential information. 

The EIR fails to confront the lack of compatibility of the project with its setting.The EIR states on p. 2-16 that "ZAB must find that the project is compatible with the visual character and form of the district." It may be argued that the 180-foot tower at the southwest corner is "compatible" with the Wells Fargo Building and the Great Western (now Chase) Building. But there is no way that the block-wide 120-foot high slab along Harold Way is compatible with anything nearby. Figures 2-21, 2-22 and 2-24 demonstrate that this slab extends for the full width of the block frontage. Including the south tower, which is 180 feet tall, the total width of the slab along Harold Way is approximately 235 feet. It will overwhelm the historic buildings which face it. The EIR utterly fails to explain how such a slab, forming a wall to views and sun, is compatible with the current character of downtown or with.the drawings included in the OAP and its Design Guidelines. 

On November 10, The Berkeley City Council voted to reject a minimum wage proposal that was submitted to it by its own Labor Commission. All those who serve on the Commission are appointed by City Council members. To the disappointment of the Commission and the more than 100 labor and community people who attended that meeting at Longfellow School, the Council recommended instead a very diluted minimum wage package. Most of the council members have convinced themselves that paying workers a wage that exceeds the poverty level is a bad thing for small business and the economy. 

Only Jesse Arreguin, who is running for mayor next year, and Max Anderson voted to support the Labor Commission’s recommendations. Regrettably, Laurie Capitelli, who is also running for Mayor in 2016, voted against the progressive recommendations of the Labor Commission.  

The Council should be paying attention to the evidence of how higher wages stimulates rather than depresses economic activity. For example, the majority of the Council is ignoring how the recent drop in unemployment in Oakland is related to the impact of the city’s minimum wage law.  

The Berkeley City Council has taken the long road to the political right. In the year 2000, when the living wage ordinance was passed, Its purpose according to Council's Finance Department was to “insure that businesses in a contractual relationship with the City pay their employees a wage that can support a family at, or above, the poverty level”. But most members of the current council refused to take the next step recommended by its Labor Commission. They opposed the proposal to extend the living wage obligation to all private employers. 

Also disappointing was the Council’s refusal to enact the Labor Commission’s paid sick leave recommendation. San Francisco provides paid sick. So does Oakland and Emeryville. Paid sick leave does not only protect low wage workers, who often feel compelled to go to work because they cannot afford to lose pay. It also protects co-workers from exposure as well as customers at restaurants who could become ill from eating food prepared by sick cooks and served by contagious waitresses and waiters. 

If you have been sick recently, could your contact with a contagious workers been the cause? And shouldn’t Berkeley voters expect that the Berkeley City Council will attempt to protect the well being of the public? 

However, reacting to the enormous pressure to increase the minimum wage, the Council approved a $15 an hour wage. But claiming that it wants to protect “small businesses”, the effective date is not until 2020. Sounds reasonable. However, since the Council defines small business as establishments that employ up to 55 full time employees, more than 90 percent of the City’s businesses escape an earlier obligation. 

In San Francisco the $15 hourly wage will be reached in 2018, which is two years earlier than in Berkeley. Emeryville also adopted a minimum wage ordinance that will provide minimum wage workers $15 an hour in 2018. El Cerrito just passed a minimum wage law that increases the legal minimum to $15 an hour by 2019. 

The Berkeley City Council should be ashamed of itself for putting poverty wage workers at the bottom of the list. 

The following email address will reach all members of the Berkeley City Council including Mayor Bates: council@cityofberkeley.info

After at least 14 people were murdered and 17 wounded in San Bernardino by assailants armed with assault weapons, Assistant Director in Charge of the Los Angeles FBI Field Office David Bowditch told the press: "We do not know if this is a terrorist incident." 

How can this NOT be an act of terror? 

Here's how: 

According to the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. § 2331), it takes more than mass killing of unarmed citizens to constitute an act of terror. Under Federal law, "domestic terrorism" must "Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law" and meet three characteristics. First, an attack must appear "intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." The San Bernardino violence certainly qualifies on this point. 

But now let's examine the other two requirements: 

The slaughter of innocent civilians must also be intended to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" or designed to "affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." 

In other words, it's not enough to kill innocent Americans: the act has to be accompanied by an intent to "send a message" to Washington -- or Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, or Paris. 

So the question becomes: Why would anyone wish to "influence the policy of a government"? Why would anyone want to "affect the conduct of a government"? 

Most likely because that government has done something that has deeply angered the would-be attackers. 

In other words, for an act of wanton slaughter to qualify as "terrorism" it has to be in retaliation for some provocative action or policy committed or imposed by a "government." It has to be an act of revenge. An act of retaliation. 

So someone who murders people at a Planned Parenthood facility because of a twisted Christian conviction of "the sanctity of life" is not a terrorist. 

Someone who storms into a crowded office after losing his job and opens fire on co-workers is not a terrorist. 

Someone who plants a bomb in a mosque, church, or synagogue out of religious hatred is not a terrorist. 

Someone who dons a hood and lynches a family out of racial hatred is not a terrorist. 

The man who shot and killed a waitress in Wichita after she asked him to stop smoking is not a terrorist. 

It's not terrorism unless a "government" is involved. 

It's not terrorism unless a "government" feels it is being pressured to reconsider its policies. 

It's not terrorism unless a "government" concludes that someone is attempting to "affect" its "conduct." 

So terrorism (under the definition of Federal law) is not about dead civilians. It is all about a government maintaining its unhampered ability to impose sanctions, topple elected leaders, impose puppet regimes, and cross sovereign borders -- to engage in occupations and brutal foreign wars that claim thousands of innocent civilian lives -- without fear of being "influenced" or "affected." 

This definition is a comfort to the National Rifle Association. Under the FBI's definition, angry and/or mentally unstable, white racist males who take it upon themselves to mass-murder family members and strangers, cannot be called "terrorists." The NRA cannot be accused of advocating the arming of potential "terrorists." 

Unless, of course, your name is Cliven Bundy. 

In April 2014, Nevada cattle rancher Bundy took issue with the Federal government's claim that he owed $1.2 million in unpaid fees for grazing his 500 cows on federal land. 

Bundy definitely intended to "influence" and "affect" the government's "conduct" and he was willing to resort to armed violence to do so. Along with 400 armed supporters of a "citizens' militia," Bundy stared down the agents of the Bureau of Land Management. And Washington blinked. 

Fortunately, no shots were fired. 

In Bundy's case, the mere threat of terrorism (Note: it is a crime to point an armed weapons at a federal officer) appears to have won out. As The Guardian noted on June 1, 2015, more than a year since the headline-making confrontation, Bundy "has not seen a single federal official or vehicle on his 600,000-acre property, which sprawls 80 miles north of Las Vegas, and feels no pressure to pay a cent of the $1.2m." 

If Bundy's showdown had resulted in bloodshed, he would have been labeled a "terrorist" under the definition of the US Code. But it is unlikely that we would be hearing the NRA placing that label on Bundy and his armed militia. 

As America becomes increasingly plagued by the trauma of mass shootings, it is important to recognize where the real threats lie. When we hear the word "terrorists," we are supposed to think of people with foreign names, unfamiliar religions and ancient grudges. But, according to a study by The Guardian, Americans are 58 times more likely to be killed by police bullets than by a terrorist's bomb. (And, even Fox News admits the chances of an American being killed by a Christian conservative right-wing extremist are seven times greater than the odds of being killed by a Muslim jihadist.) 

Oil giant Exxon Mobile is under a sweeping criminal investigation in New York over claims it deliberately misled the public on the risks of climate change. Revelations have now surfaced that early in the 1970s Exxon’s own scientists concluded that there was a direct causation between burning fossil fuels and climate change. Students at Columbia Journalism School (CJS) in collaboration with The Los Angeles Times broke the story.  

In what appears to be an attempt to silence or undermine its investigation, Exxon donated $220,000 to CJS. In a heavy-handed attempt to quash the impact of the investigation, Exxon, with additional funding from the Koch Brothers, accused the reporters of misleading the public. The highly respected journal ‘Nature’ countered by publishing a damning article accusing Exxon of endangering the public good by spreading disinformation to its investors and the general public, in a desperate attempt to protect its bottom line.  

In a rare moment of official concern over the brouhaha, Secretary of State, John Kerry, stated “that if these allegations are proved to be true, it was worse than the tobacco industry and a betrayal of everything it means to be a responsible corporation”. If the criminal investigation prevails, Exxon could be liable for millions in court fees and possibly billions in punitive damages arising from its callous and willful disregard for public health and safety.

Editor's Note: The latest issue of the Pepper Spray Times is now available.

You can view it absolutely free of charge by clicking here . You can print it out to give to your friends.

Grace Underpressure has been producing it for many years now, even before the Berkeley Daily Planet started distributing it, most of the time without being paid, and now we'd like you to show your appreciation by using the button below to send her money.

This is a Very Good Deal. Go for it! 

Dear Council Member

You know the problems:

1. Giving over four million dollars in reduced fees to the client of an ex-employee.

2. Destroying the Shattuck Ten, with no certainty of replacement.

3. Failing to provide affordable housing.

4. Digging under the Shattuck Hotel.

5. Failing to meet the highest energy standards.

6. Favoring the 1% (or .01%) at everyone else's expense.

Do the right thing. Send it back to the ZAB.

Thank you! 

By the convening of Tuesday (December 1) evening’s Work Session and Council meeting, well over thirty hearings and agenda items before the Council, the ZAB and various commissions on the matter of building 2211 Harold Way will have been heard..well more than they wanted, or anticipated. 

Of all the gatherings of facts—read and unread--presented by the concerned citizenry in the past few years at these sessions, the fact of this persistence stands out. 2211 Harold Way is a symbol of a struggle between rational growth and surrender to a clutch of vain and potent builder/investors/liars for whom capital profit is the only consideration. 

A rational plan for just growth would not wash its hands of those many who will be dislocated to God-only-knows-where because of of untenable rents fostered by the ‘market rate’ philosophy behind virtually all new housing construction in town. It would also keep what works, and works well, for the community. Specifically, the impending loss of the economically-magnetic Shattuck Cinemas was what initiated the outcry around 2211. An agreement to keep them was, as it’s turning out, seen by the developer as a challenge to eliminate them entirely. 

Instead, a happy alliance by council, board and commission majorities and the dictating developer/owner faction seem hell bent not only by replacing one renting population with another currently able to afford steep rents (while paying off student loans) but quartering them in ‘luxury’ units which are rather less than luxurious..or even roomy. 

Keeping Berkeley “just as it is” is simply not the idea behind the principled opposition to 2211 Harold Way or its underlying intents. The dereliction, blight and dis-use--often perversely maintained for tax benefit--seen at street level is as unwanted, and un-civilized, as the permanent towering blight of 2211 Harold Way and possible followers is sure to become. 

I urge the Council to send the proposal back to the Zoning Adjustment Board for further attention focused on the marshaling of current facts and requirements. I would also encourage councilors to rent (not buy) pied-a-terres in those recently-erected buildings, to get a good idea of what most of you support.

I heard it again the same phrase that has been repeated over and over, “What happened to Berkeley?” What did happen to Berkeley, the city that is revered for the Free Speech Movement, Independent Living, curb cuts, Alice Waters, Edible Schoolyard Project, courageous stands, Anti-Apartheid and now is poised to adopt Ordinance No. 7,449-N.S regulating the use of sidewalks and Ordinance No. 7,450-N.S prohibiting obstruction of City-owned planters and trees? MONEY

If money isn’t center stage, it is never far away greasing the wheels. The feel of it, the lure of it, the power of it drives dispensing with public promises and city plans. It means discarding values and contorted explanations and justifications for unjustifiable actions. It slides underneath the apt description of Library Gardens, “a Wink and a Blink” whispered in my ear over and over at the city sponsored Adeline Corridor event.

The looming questions is, What should happen at 2211 Harold Way? There are stacks of studies, letters and comments. Some of them I wrote myself, but the real question and answer has evolved over months of observation and hundreds if not thousands of conversations mostly with strangers. Their names are on the petitions unfurled in council chambers. 

The answer solidified after an invitation to speak at the Commission on Disability on November 18, 2015, it is what I have known in my heart for a long time. 2070 Allston Way, (Parcel 57-2027-7) more commonly known as the Postal Annex should be the site of a fully affordable mid-size residential building with dedicated accessible units. There could easily be fifty units, maybe more. The proximity to BART, bus and so many amenities makes it ideal for anyone with limited mobility and especially people who are wheelchair dependent.  

Parcel 2060 Allston A (Parcel 57-2027-6) the location of the Shattuck Cinemas, retail storefronts and basement needs to stay intact for the present and foreseeable future. The fully accessible Shattuck Cinemas with hundreds of thousands of annual patron visits are too important to the downtown economy to demolish. The Shattuck Cinemas did not lose business during the last recession and they will be critical in stabilizing the downtown economy through the next. For the present they will continue to draw people to downtown businesses during the current and pending construction including the Center Street Garage and the proposed 2129 Shattuck Avenue hotel now going through review. 

If you personally never go to the Shattuck Cinemas, know that people of all ages, all ethnicities come from across the Bay Area bypassing other cities for the selection of film provided by the Shattuck Cinemas. It is a diverse audience. Watching a movie on a home TV or device or the little rooms (if built) with 13 foot ceilings planned for Harold Way are a poor substitute for the experience of seeing film on the big screen.  

The City of Berkeley seems to have lost its way while continuing with high fives and self congratulations as if past leadership in justice and social movements is present today. The phrase from health care, “Do no harm” comes to mind. There are other sites for speculative investing and profiteering. A scaled down version for Harold Way was never offered. A development that preserves the Shattuck Cinemas as they now exist and a fully accessible affordable residential building at the site of the Postal Annex is a plan that the community can support and celebrate. Banners on buildings across the city tell us there is no shortage of luxury priced apartments. The shortage is affordable housing. 

While there were many hearings on Harold Way, public comment including carefully researched reviews by professionals and dedicated citizens who studied hundreds of pages of documents were dismissed and ignored. The Harold Way project was given special concessions by the City Council that beg for a taxpayers lawsuit and thorough investigation.  

Rather than a legacy of merit, the question remains just whose hands are hidden in HSR Berkeley Investments, LLC. Hill Street Realty www.hsr.biz a company that describes its business practices as, “creative income enhancing,” “expense reduction solutions” and “value add transactions.” Hill Street Realty a firm that labels properties as “transactions.” 

The concession gift by the City Council and excessive profits to be garnered by HSR Berkeley Investments, LLC. point to something more nefarious than just a love of high rise buildings or a naive City Council. Right now there is a hot construction market and other cities see developers making major offers to get their toe in the game while Berkeley elected and appointed officials bend over backwards to give concessions taking actions that cut into the heart of needed city services.  

What has happened to Berkeley?

These are my continuing concerns about the 2211 Harold Way development
to be included in my presentation on Tuesday, Dec. 8th.

The City and outside consultants relied solely on information provided by
Mr. Rhoades and company. What proof do you have that this information is accurate? 

Is the Planning Department required to prove the statements of the developer are in fact accurate?
If the Planning Department is not required to check on the validity of the developer's data, who is?
Must it be we appellants? Shouldn't it be the City? There is something wrong with this process.

1. Earthquake Safety: The report from Tipping Structural Engineers regarding the
basement cinema construction under the Shattuck Hotel was based on documents
provided by Rhoades and company, and did not involve an actual inspection of the site.
Can theaters really be built there? In case of structure failure, who is liable?

2. Economic Viability:
The staff and outside consultant state that the theater complex built by Rhoades et al
will require a subsidy of $1.35 million into perpetuity and that the city would need to
subsidize the theater by $525,000 a year. Can you guarantee that the city and developer
will be willing to subsidize the theater into perpetuity?

Landmark theaters may well look at the theater's low capacity, earthquake vulnerability and
low profit margin and say "No, thank you."

Since the movie theaters are a major economic engine for downtown Berkeley,
what will happen to the downtown businesses that rely on movie patronage?

3. ABAG Requirements are not met.
In ABAG’s Determination for Berkeley, Berkeley residents should have access
to quality housing at a range of prices and rents,and that new housing should be
developed to expand housing opportunities in Berkeley to meet the needs of all groups.”

2211 Harold Way housing rents are affordable only for those with yearly incomes of at
least $155,625 to $465,000, assuming that housing is one third of their earnings.

The staff report states the "Project will include residential, commercial and cinema
uses that allow people who live, work and learn in Downtown to meet daily needs on foot."
However, according to the US Census, 2013, the average time to work for Berkeley
residents is 26.9 minutes. They are not working in Downtown Berkeley.

"The Project will promote transit as an efficient and attractive choice through its location."
This is wishful thinking at best given our already crowded public transit system.

4. The 2211 Harold Way project proposed by Rhoades et al violate
provisions of Measure R passed in 2010.

“Measure R: Shall the City of Berkeley adopt policies to revitalize the downtown and help
make Berkeley one of the greenest cities in the United States by meeting our climate
action goals; concentrating housing, jobs and cultural destinations near transit, shops
and amenities; preserving historic resources; enhancing open space; promoting green
buildings; and calling for 2 residential buildings and 1 hotel no taller than our existing
180 foot buildings and 2 smaller office buildings up to 120 feet?”

2211 Harold way is taller than 180 feet.
The only jobs it provides are people working at the building.
It increases strain on the existing infrastructure without relief.
The theaters are an historic resource which is not guaranteed.

Lack of earthquake safety, questionable economic viability and green goals, noncompliance
with Measure R passed by Berkeley voters in 2010, and the inadequate staff report should
be sufficient reasons for the Berkeley City Council to reject the permit allowing 2211 Harold
Way to proceed. 

Dear Mayor Bates and members of the Berkeley City Council,

The City Council should not allow the developers of 2211 Harold Way to weasel out of their commitment to retain the ten Shattuck Cinemas theaters in the new building. They are describing the theater complex requirements as "unreasonable" (item 2, page 2 of their appeal). The developers made the choice to propose a building where ten of downtown's 20 movie screens are located. Those theaters are important to downtown economic vitality as they are major draws to the downtown especially at night and on weekends. City policy, expressed in the Downtown Area Plan, calls for retention, and even expansion, of movie theaters in the downtown. By choosing this site, the developers took on an obligation to include the movie theaters in the new building. There should no modifications in conditions of approval for the project that in any way weaken the requirement to provide movie theaters in the new building; if anything those conditions should be strengthened. 

Conditions 17, Street Frontage Improvements and 21 and 53 Green Trip Platinum Certification should not be eliminated as requested by the applicant in their appeal. These are reasonable and not very costly requirements that the developers can easily afford. 

The Applicant's appeal is correct on one point: ZAB did rely on flawed economic data and analysis. The flawed economic data includes the pro forma submitted by the developers.  

The Harrison-Hendry appeal notes the gross overestimate of land cost in the developer's pro forma. Land cost is not $40 million as stated. The property was acquired for $20 million; that is a matter of public record and that includes the cost of the existing commercial space on Shattuck which is not part of the new 2211 Harold Way project. So land cost for the 2211 Harold Way is something less than $20 million, not $40 million. And Harrison and Hendry also note that the developer's pro-forma understates project revenues. They fail to even include an estimate of parking revenues. Per City policy, parking is not included in the rent or purchase price of the units, but must be rented or purchased separately. And the developers are providing an additional unnecessary level of parking that will bring in some revenue.This revenue should have been included in the pro forma. 

ZAB acted on community benefits without the benefit of any independent analysis of the proposed project's finances. With no independent evaluation of the project's costs, revenues and profits, there was no determination of what the developer could reasonably afford to pay and there was no way to value proposed community benefits relative to the project's profits and no way to know whether the project was capturing the increase in value resulting from the up zoning of downtown as part of the Downtown Plan process. All of this is ably addressed in the Harrison-Hendry appeal which council members should carefully review. As Harrrison and Hendry note, the EPS review did not include any independent verification of project costs but simply accepted the developer's flawed pro forma. 

What should the City Council do? 

Send 2211 Harold Way back to ZAB. Ask the developers to resubmit a pro forma with parking revenues and an acreage land cost included. Mandate hiring of an independent consultant to review the pro forma and relevant data and to advise the ZAB on what the developer can afford to pay in community benefits. ZAB should then revisit community benefits based on this independent assessment of the project. 

Harrison and Hendry make a persuasive case that the project's profits are grossly understated and that the City should be getting a large dollar amount of community benefits. To approve this project without real independent analysis of the project's finances would amount to granting the developers a huge windfall. The public were promised that new development would bring with it substantial community benefits. That will only happen if the the City Council shows leadership and sends this back to ZAB for and independent analysis and reconsideration of community benefits 

On Tuesday Nov. 24, the City of Berkeley posted a notice declaring the occupation in front of Old City Hall illegal, and the occupiers guilty of misdemeanor disorderly conduct. This warning from the City to the homeless occupation, now proclaimed “Liberty City,” is unfortunate news.

As Peace and Justice Commission chair, I had been calling senior city staff people to urge a stance of communication and collaboration to meet the immediate health and safety needs of the occupiers. Requests such as sufficient bathrooms and garbage cans, first aid equipment and cooperative relations with police and city staff, would also serve the interests of the neighbors and the larger community. 

Late on the 24th I talked with a senior city staffer. He depicted the notice not as a warning or a threat, but as a helpful provision of information about the illegality of the occupation and about the resources available to homeless people in Berkeley. I pointed out to him that the occupiers are there not as a squat, but as a demonstration, which is constitutionally protected free assembly and expression. I also reminded him that the broader community has an interest in the well-being of the occupation, as well as in its message of human rights for the homeless. 

For people who are opposed to criminalizing the homeless, support for the occupation needs to be a key part of the campaign in the weeks and months to come. The occupiers are putting their bodies on the line for our common objective: the primacy of human rights as a governing principle of government. A successful and healthy occupation can serve to refute the negative messaging and outright lies that are told about the homeless. 

At this moment, powerful political and economic interests are pushing for punitive measures that will increase the burdens of daily life for the homeless. On the other side, professionals and activists are arguing for alternatives that promote human rights of the homeless. 

The only people whose voices are not heard are the people at the center of the issue. This is a critical time for the community to hear from them, to see their humanity. These voices must gain a hearing at the court of public opinion. They have much to tell about how they want their lives to change, how the punitive measures affect their ability to survive; even what their condition should reveal about our society and its priorities. Instead the opposite is happening: the homeless are seen not as persons, but as a symbolic target, an obstacle, a problem to be solved. In a cynical calculus, their rights are disposable compared to the imperatives of commerce, and they are made pawns in a political wedge issue. 

Assuming that there is not a heartless post-Thanksgiving eviction, the December 1 city council meeting will be an important moment to protest the eviction threat. Council will take the required second vote on the ordinances criminalizing homelessness. After that point, the City could move quickly to evict, unless a broad show of community support is organized. 

Moments like this one are the reason I became part of the city’s Peace and Justice Commission. I hoped to do more than just solve other people’s problems for them. My goal was to facilitate the access of marginalized communities to the decision-making process of the City. 

Peace and Justice functions as a human relations commission. Part of our role is to “develop ways to resolve conflict which may be applied on a local level…help create citizen awareness around issues of social justice… act as a liaison between community groups organizing around issues of peace and social justice and City government.” 

We who believe in the empowering impact of collective self-determination can help humanize homeless people in the public eye, by facilitating their efforts and their voices. 

We must hear the message of the Liberty City occupiers, who say, “We are asking to be allowed to take care of ourselves in the commons,” as they create a self-managing village with a democratic decision-making process and a code of conduct to ensure a clean and safe environment. As with affirmative action, women’s rights, and same-sex marriage, these are not “special rights,” they are human rights. 

As the homeless community finds its public voice, it should come to be seen as a legitimate constituency and an actor in the life of the city. It has the potential to be a part of civic negotiations for conflict resolution and restorative practices. This process could promote a healing that will benefit all constituencies, on both immediate health and safety issues and longer-term transformational change. To the extent that homeless people become agents for change, the pretext for them to be treated like “aliens” would be reduced. 

No longer can we sweep homeless people from city to city like, in Woody Guthrie’s expression, so many “dry leaves.” Human rights, under the international framework, begin with the right to dignity, which in turn requires self-determination. Up to 3.5 million people in the U.S. are homeless at some time in the year, 100 million are homeless around the world, and an incredible one billion are squatters, refugees, or in temporary shelter. These numbers are likely to explode in years to come, due to climate change and other social dislocations. 

Berkeley is moving to copy the demeaning and historically tragic treatment of the Roma people and the Irish Travelers. We can find better models for how to live side by side with the homeless. Widespread homelessness is a symptom of our troubled civilization. Respect for the dignity and self-determination of marginalized communities is essential to turning around the social and economic polarization that is rapidly growing in our society. 

1. Come to the Council meeting, 7pm Tuesday Dec. 1 at Longfellow Middle School (1500 Derby Street). 

You can join the assembly and march from the “Liberty City” occupation at Old City Hall (2134 MLK Jr. Way) beginning at 4pm. You can also attend the special Council meeting at 5:30 pm, at which important measures to promote affordable housing will be considered. 

The Stop Urban Shield Coalition will hold a press conference at Longfellow at 6:30pm. 

Many critical issues are on the docket for the 7pm meeting, including, among others: 

• Criminalization of sidewalk behavior (item 4, will probably be moved from Consent to Action agenda)
• BPD Agreements with external law enforcement agencies including NCRIC and UASI (item 26)
• Implementation of Tier One Recommendations from Homeless Task Force (item 29)
• Investigation into BPD Response to December 6 2014 Black Lives Matter Protests (item 32)

3. Form a community support coalition, composed of organizations and individuals who want to make a commitment to defending Liberty City. This coalition could have committees working on outreach, material aid, lobbying, action, phone tree, and other activities. 

4. The Peace and Justice Commission will address the homeless emergency at its next meeting, Monday night December 7, 7-10pm at the North Berkeley Senior Center, Hearst and MLK. This meeting will be a supportive place to have a strategic conversation. 

Dear City Council Members,

I am writing to you in advance of the December 1st City Council meeting at which you will receive a Police Review Commission report on the police response to the Black Lives Matter protest of December 6, 2015. The Police Review Commission has done an admirable job of reviewing the evidence provided to them by the BPD and its report on the protest response. However, the PRC has been unable to hold any individual officers accountable for their wanton aggression against non-violent demonstrators. Cops who assaulted people who were within their rights to be present on the street will not suffer any consequence for their actions. If you follow the link we have provided, you will be able to see for yourself how the police response, rather than protecting the peace and safety of our community, became the single greatest threat to us and caused numerous injuries through its beating, gassing, and shooting of "less lethal" munitions. Sadly, what also becomes clear is that BPD leadership escalated events at many points and we do not believe that the few incidents of individuals throwing objects at police officers justifies the mass gassing of hundreds of people and the indiscriminate shooting of munitions at retreating demonstrators. 

One aspect of problem concerns the militarization of our police department under the leadership of Chief Michael Meehan. I know that many of you have lived in Berkeley long enough to know that in years past, our police department was able to facilitate peaceful protest and deal strategically with incidents of property destruction or violence by individuals. In fact, there was a time when BPD leadership valued its relationship with the community and worked to develop forms of community policing. Such is no longer the case and the perception of the BPD is that it is a department that is out of touch with the needs of our community including how to deal with people with mental health issues, homeless people, people of color and of course, protesters. 

We hope that this incident and a careful review of our investigation will lead you to question the current leadership of BPD and evaluate the increasingly militarized direction of the current leadership. 

Thanks for your consideration. 

To view the People’s Investigation: http://berkeleycopwatch.org/timeline/

The gruesome killing of 17-year-old African-American, Laquan McDonald, in a hail of 16 bullets, including multiple times in the back, occurred more than a year ago. Chicago police officer, Van Dyke, who has been charged with first-degree murder began shooting 6 seconds after arriving on the scene. Laquan’s final moments were captured on the dashboard camera. 

After months of foot dragging a judge ordered the video of the killing to be released. 400 days have elapsed and every effort was made to prevent the release of the video which clearly implicates senior police officials and high government Chicago officials including Mayor Rahm Emmanuel. Van Dyke received full pay during the 400 days. 

He had at least 20 civilian complaints against him, which included excessive use of force, illegal arrest and use of racial slurs. None of these complaints resulted in any disciplinary action. 

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s claim that he had not seen the video seems highly unlikely given that he approved a $5 million settlement to the family earlier this year, even before the family had filed a lawsuit. The Mayor and the State’s Attorney, Anita Alvarez stated “they were saddened, outraged, disturbed when they saw the video.” It is a pity they didn’t express outrage over Van Dyke prior unprofessional conduct and failed to take remedial action.. The police chief should be fired and Mayor Emanuel should be severely censored for his complicity in prolonging the course of justice.

The Obama administration has intensified its trade with Saudi Arabia ignoring warnings that it is guilty of massive war crimes and human rights violations in Yemen. The sale includes 84 new Boeing F-15 aircraft, 70 of Boeing's Apache attack helicopters and 36 of its AH-6M Little Birds. In addition, the deal will include 72 Black Hawk helicopters. 

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch has called for the United States to halt arm shipments to Saudi Arabia or risk being complicit in war crimes in Yemen where Saudi Arabia is continuing its intensive bombing campaign against the Houthi rebels. Thousands of civilians have died under the heavy Saudi onslaught.  

It is past time to file divorce papers and sever all connection to this xenophobic regime which exemplifies a harsh Islamic orthodoxy that is extremely misogynistic, homophobic, intolerant of other religions and excessively cruel in its archaic system of justice and punishment. Sadly, the defense contractors in Britain and the US see Saudi Arabia as a cash cow who will continue to purchase huge quantities of weapons to expand their medieval Islamic Wahhabism round the world. The U.S. has truly lost the moral high ground in its ongoing support of the Saudi monarchy. We seem to have conveniently forgotten that 15 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudi nationals. The lead author of the Senate’s report on 9/11 says it’s time to reveal what’s in the 28 pages that were redacted from it.

We elected our City Council to represent the needs and interests of the residents of Berkeley, not to enhance the wealth of for-profit developers. Since five members of your appointed Zoning Adjustments Board and Landmarks Protection Commission have failed to represent our interests, a number of Berkeley residents have submitted appeals of their decisions on this project.

Before you address these appeals, I hope you will consider seriously the following questions:

1. Our city's most urgent need at this time, due to the unprecedented rise in housing costs, is housing for families and for middle and lower income residents. Why then are there virtually no affordable units being built? The city has approved scores of market rate development projects of four and six floors but nearly all are planned to be rented or sold at market rate or higher. Why allow the biggest of them all, shamefully out-of-scale with the surrounding historic buildings, to pay a reduced in-lieu fee instead of providing 20% or more affordable units? 

2. Numerous Berkeley residents who are concerned about the patently inappropriate siting of this very large building have asked the city to require the developer to provide story poles of some sort to demonstrate the height and volume of the building. The ZAB and the Landmarks Preservation Commission failed to make this a requirement of approval. Will the City Council show more respect for Berkeley residents' request and require story poles to be placed at a time convenient for the public to see them before voting on this project?