After four years on the Council, I continue to find the divisions between those who share similar values very distasteful. But even more than that, I despair when I see outside monied interests taking advantage of that division.
This is the case in the Council race for District 2. Real estate interests (the California Real Estate Independent Expenditure Committee and the National Association of Realtors) have spent $11,000 and $9,871 respectively to defeat Cheryl Davila and in favor of Alex Sharenko, whose fliers feature him and Timothy Carter (but not Terry Taplin). The National Association of Realtors have spent over $100,000 to defeat the pro-tenant Rent Board slate. Sharenko has also sent out mailers accusing Davila of creating the homelessness crisis – tactics reminiscent of when he served as the campaign manager for my opponent in the last election.
On the other hand, we have two candidates – Cheryl Davila and Terry Taplin -- who care about tenants, police reform, and dealing with homelessness in a compassionate way. Cheryl has introduced and stood with me on legislation supporting tenants, reducing police use of force, taking Berkeley out of Urban Shield, addressing the climate emergency and looking for solutions to homelessness that avoid criminalizing the poor. Terry has endorsed the pro-tenant slate for the Rent Board (Cheryl endorsed only two of its members), believes public land should be used for affordable housing and has been active in the Racial and Criminal Justice Reform group.
Politics is about choices, not perfection, and certainly shouldn’t be decided by money. Berkeley introduced rank choice voting so voters could indicate which candidate they wanted most and which others they would find acceptable. I am recommending that voters in District 2 vote for Terry Taplin and Cheryl Davila for 1 and 2 in whatever order they prefer.
Update: the realtors have now spent $160,000 against the Rent Board slate and issued another hit piece against CM Davila.
The National Weather Service has extended its Red Flag warning until Tuesday evening in some parts of the Bay Area as high winds and low humidity continue to raise the danger of wildfires.
The weather service's Red Flag warning was originally scheduled to last through 11 a.m. Monday in much of the Bay Area, including the North Bay mountains, East Bay hills, Santa Cruz mountains and the Peninsula.
The warning will now last through 5 p.m. Tuesday, at least, in the North Bay and East Bay, while for the other affected regions it expired at 11 a.m. as scheduled. The agency's wind advisory in all affected counties also expired at 11 a.m.
Weather stations recorded wind gusts as high as 89 mph overnight near Mt. Saint Helena. Gusts were also recorded as high as 58 mph at Oakland International Airport and 53 mph at the Napa County Airport.
The high winds led officials with the city of Berkeley and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District over the weekend to urge residents in the highest risk areas to voluntarily evacuate.
In anticipation of the winds and their potential to blow down power lines, PG&E said Sunday it planned to proactively shut off power for roughly 361,000 customers in 36 counties, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano and Sonoma counties.
During the shutoffs, PG&E is operating community resource facilities for residents who lose power, offering them access to medical equipment and electronic charging stations, WiFi, bottled water and non-perishable food.
Up-to-date information about the power shutoffs can be found at PG&E's website at pge.com.
My heart aches. A beautiful young woman is dead, her son motherless, her family traumatized. Violence often begets violence. And it is critical to interrupt it at the earliest stage. Studies prove that community engagement programs involving trained and trusted peacemakers bring gun violence down;
I submitted articles and raised the question at a recent Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing Workgroup on whether BPD had followed up on continuous offers from community organizations to work on gun violence interruption following a daytime shooting in San Pablo Park a couple of years ago. I was at that historic community meeting in a filled auditorium hosted by Councilmember Davila and Mayor Arreguin. Berkeley residents showed up with compelling stories, and proposed solutions including BPD working with a CeaseFire group, or something similar. It was one of the largest and most diverse gatherings I had observed in Berkeley.
I asked again in a recent F&IP workgroup whether such a step could be prioritized in light of gun shootings in South and West Berkeley. I was told various programs were being ‘studied.’ I do not understand why the BPD’s $77 million budget could not include a line item for Violence Reduction programming, as other cities have adopted with positive results. Police are sometimes referred to as ‘Peace Officers,’ and peacemaking should be part of the restorative justice approach to re-imagined policing.
I was told such programs are expensive, and understanding that is a reality, I sent a link to grants for police to receive funding to adopt such programs. I was happy to hear that BPD has an officer who is a seasoned grant writer seeking funding. Unfortunately, we were recently denied a grant. I recall that Councilmember Davila asked the BPD during a recent meeting about the status of a gun buy back program, and other efforts to reduce gun violence.
I’m sending a donation to the GoFundMe page for the family of Ms. Henderson, and I urge everyone who can do so to contribute. However, I also ask myself - should I have advocated even louder and stronger for a prioritizing of peacemaking, gun prevention programs that could save this young woman’s life?
I mentioned CeaseFire, LiveFree and Voices Against Violence as local and national programs that have proven to reduce gun violence. Community safety must also include protecting Black, Brown and Indigenous lives from violence. The Berkeley Community Safety Coalition is committed to advocating for programs and policies that ensure healthy, safe lives for our entire community. I will work with BEEMA, BCSC and others committed to peace and justice.
As a mother, and a concerned Berkeley resident - I call on all of us to wrap our arms around Ms.Henderson’s family and others impacted by gun violence. My aunt and cousin were killed in their own home in Mississippi a couple of years ago and I promised my mom after the funeral that I would do all that I could to ensure the police fully investigated and pursued their killer. Many of us have lost loved ones to gun violence. I will return to that effort again after my dozens of emails and phone calls did not indicate any suspect was detained in my aunt and cousin’s killing. There is no statute of limitations on murder to charge the killer(s) in that case, or the recent murder of this beautiful young mother.
We want to see our family members at birthday celebrations and holiday dinners- not at funerals in caskets. As we pursue suspects - we must also tackle the complex causes that contribute to escalating gun violence. I believe the old adage is true: A dollar of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And money and people power must be mobilized and prioritized to stop gun violence in my beloved Berkeley - because each life lost is priceless and irreplaceable.
A $50,000 reward is being offered for information that could help lead to the arrest of responsible suspects in the fatal shooting of Sereinat'e Henderson Wednesday night in Berkeley, police officials announced.
Henderson was found unresponsive in a vehicle on Prince Street with life-threatening bullet wounds. She later succumbed to her injuries.
"My heart goes out to the victim and her family." Councilman Ben Bartlett said on his Facebook page.
Anyone with information about this case is asked to call Berkeley police Homicide Unit at (510) 981-5741 or the 24-hour non-emergency number 1t (510) 981-5900.
If possible, hills residents should plan to stay elsewhere until fire danger subsides
With high fire danger starting Sunday at 11am, everyone, especially residents in the Berkeley hills, should stay on heightened alert, keep phones charged and nearby, and consider leaving the hills before Sunday afternoon - especially if they would have trouble getting out quickly in a fire. People who live east of Claremont and residents of Panoramic Hill should also prepare for potential power shutoffs.
A Red Flag Warning has been issued for the Berkeley hills from 11am Sunday, October 25 to 5am Tuesday, October 27. Current forecasts project winds in the region to be as strong or stronger than those present during 2019's devastating Kincade Fire and the 2017 wine country fires. Combined with record-low moisture levels, these winds are expected to create the most dangerous fire weather Berkeley has seen so far this year. The combination of strong winds, low humidity, and dry vegetation enables wildfires to spark and spread rapidly.
In addition, PG&E has announced plans for a public safety power shutoff (PSPS) for parts of Berkeley starting as early as 4pm on Sunday, October 25. PG&E has told the City that it anticipates that 1,500 Berkeley customers are likely to be impacted. This is the first time this year PG&E has included Berkeley in a PSPS event -- an indication of how serious this wind event is expected to be.
The City has staffed and positioned additional fire resources and added police patrols in the hills. Additional vehicles and portable speakers have been moved to fire stations to facilitate an evacuation if needed.
A Task Force of Fire and Forestry responders will be ready to rapidly respond to downed trees blocking evacuation routes. Residents can help by reporting broken branches and fallen trees to 3-1-1 or (510) 981-2489. Call 9-1-1 only for immediate life safety issues.
Sign up for alerts to stay informed
Everyone should sign up for AC Alert, the emergency notification system for Berkeley and Alameda County. In a fire evacuation, power shutoff, or other disaster, we will use AC Alert to send instructions and information.
Use the PG&E power shutoff map and sign up for address-specific alerts from PG&E to be notified if you will be impacted by PG&E power shutoffs. PG&E has stated that information about this weekend's event will be posted on the map after 8pm on Friday, October 23.
To be safest, leave the area early if you can
Hills residents should consider pre-emptively evacuating to the homes of friends, family, or to hotels until dangerous weather subsides.
Especially during high winds, wildfires can spark, spread, and change directions rapidly. Fallen branches and trees may block roads. The best way to stay in control and reduce the risk to your household is to leave before a fire starts. This is especially true for residents who would have trouble getting out quickly or on foot.
The narrow, windy street network in the Berkeley hills can get crowded quickly. The more people who leave the area in advance, the more space there will be on roads if an evacuation is required.
Because fires are unpredictable, we can only announce safe evacuation sites once a fire starts and we know what areas are threatened. Make a plan in advance to get off the hill, and keep phones and radios ready to receive instructions for where to go. We will send instructions over AC Alert and broadcast on 1610AM.
Special considerations for evacuating during COVID-19
Think about who in your network you might be able to stay with and reach out to them now. Because of the dangers of large groups gathering indoors during the COVID-19 pandemic, there will be fewer shelter options than under normal circumstances.
Talk in advance with people you might stay with about COVID-19 safety and what precautions you will take while all under the same roof. Review CDC guidance for people living in close quarters. If you can, identify households to evacuate to that don't include people over 65 years old or who have pre-existing medical conditions that make them more susceptible to COVID-19.
Discount hotel rates for Berkeleyans during Red Flag Warnings
Several hotels are offering special discounts for Berkeley residents during Red Flag Warnings in October and November. Hills residents are encouraged to take advantage of these relief rates during this period of heightened threat.
Steps everyone should take during Red Flag Warnings
The City has mobilized staff across all departments to respond rapidly to this developing situation. Residents need to prepare as well. The basic precautions all hills residents should take during every Red Flag Warning are especially important now:
Park off-street to keep roadways clear for emergency vehicles
Back into your driveway or garage so you can exit more quickly
Print out our wildfire evacuation checklist and keep it in a prominent location. Get more information on creating a go-bag, preparing your home, identifying evacuation routes, getting ready to evacuate, and what to do during an evacuation at cityofberkeley.info/wildfire.
Berkeley's hills are not immune to wildfires similar to those ravaging communities across the West Coast. Gain control. Prepare. If you can, evacuate before a fire starts.
This page was edited on Friday, October 23 shortly after publication to correct the start time for high fire danger in the first sentence. The original version said 4pm.
This page was edited on Saturday, October 24 to correct two links in the resources list.
The National Weather Service issued alerts for fire weather and high winds Friday that are expected in parts of the Bay Area beginning on Sunday.
The weather service issued the fire weather warning, which lasts from 11 a.m. Sunday to 11 a.m. Tuesday, in anticipation of low humidity and winds between 25 mph and 35 mph, as well as gusts of up to 60 mph.
The mountains and valleys in the North Bay and East Bay, the Diablo Range and the Santa Cruz Mountains are included in the fire weather watch, according to the weather service.
In some mountainous parts of the Bay Area, wind gusts could reach as high as 70 mph, forecasters said.
The high winds warning will be in effect from 4 p.m. Sunday to 10 a.m. Monday in the North Bay, East Bay, San Francisco peninsula and shoreline, Santa Clara Valley and all of Santa Cruz County.
High winds may blow down trees and power lines, according to the weather service, with the potential for widespread power outages.
Due to the expected high winds, PG&E said Friday that it will shut off power in Moraga, Orinda and Lafayette from 4 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday morning.
Roughly 16,500 customers in the Lamorinda area are expected to be impacted by the so-called Public Safety Power Shutoff.
Residents in the area are advised to plan ahead by preparing an emergency kit, ensuring they have flashlights and extra batteries and storing water and non-perishable foods.
Up-to-date information about the power shutoff can be found at PG&E's website, pge.com.
As schools inch closer to reopening campuses in some parts of California, medical experts are warning that the spread of the coronavirus will be inevitable and schools need to prepare.
Recent studies have shown that while children infected with the coronavirus are less likely to have symptoms, they often carry larger viral loads and can be "super spreaders," passing the virus to each other, their families and teachers.
And without widespread testing and contact tracing, identifying children who are infected is nearly impossible because most are asymptomatic, doctors said.
"It's very likely that even with careful screening, kids are going to end up in school with infections," said Dr. Dylan Chan, associate professor of otolaryngology (ear and throat medicine) at UC San Francisco. "Schools need to recognize that and get strategies in place."
Schools in some parts of California have reopened or are close to reopening, either because the state has granted them a waiver or their county health officials have given approval. Small in-person classes for students in special education or other high-needs groups have also started in some districts.
Schools that reopen must adhere to the state's strict health and safety protocols that include social distancing, mask requirements, deep cleaning and sending home students who might be sick.
So far, the California Department of Public Health has seen a "very small" number of outbreaks - defined as three or more cases - at K-12 schools that have reopened, according to the department.
Last week, Dr. Mark Galhy, head of the state's Health and Human Services Department, credited the small caseload to schools' and communities' precautionary measures.
"So far, it's encouraging to see the tremendous effort and planning that communities and their schools and their staff have done to make sure that it's lower risk for students and staff alike and...I think that's encouraging for all of California," he said.
Nonetheless, as more schools open, outbreaks associated with schools will be inevitable - whether they originate at the school or within the community, according to the Department of Public Health.
"As long as Covid-19 is circulating in communities, it should be expected that cases will be reported in a variety of settings, including among school students, teachers and staff in schools that have reopened for in-person learning," a department spokesperson wrote in an email to EdSource. "However, these cases may be associated with transmission within schools or community transmission, and there are school and public health plans in place for when COVID-19 occurs at a school, to implement control measures that will limit transmission within schools."
But even the strictest safety protocols might not be enough to prevent infected students from coming to school and unknowingly transmitting the virus to others, according to Chan and his colleagues at UC San Francisco. In studying random coronavirus tests of 30,000 children nationwide, Chan and his team found that the infection rate among children - even if they're asymptomatic - mirrors that of the communities in which they live.
Based on that equation, they developed a tool for schools to determine how many infected students they can expect on campus. For example, in Los Angeles County, a school with 500 students is 98 percent likely to have at least one student who's infected.
"It's important to note that even in communities with low infection rates, we still found kids with asymptomatic infections," Chan said. "Schools need to focus on reading the risks and protecting people."
Researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation reached a similar conclusion, saying that outbreaks related to schools reopening may be unavoidable.
"Where there is already widespread community transmission, as is the case in many areas in the U.S., there is clearly a risk of spread associated with reopening schools," according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report published July 29. "This challenge may be more pronounced where testing and contact tracing capacity is limited."
In addition to masks and social distancing, some schools are considering installing ventilation systems that keep air flowing, since research suggests the virus is airborne; holding classes outdoors as weather permits; hiring extra staff to clean classrooms and enforce safety protocols; limiting the number of students in a classroom; and separating desks by 6 feet.
Those steps can help lower, but not eliminate, the risk, according to Laura Flaherty, a policy researcher at the Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research and policy think tank.
"There are a number of ways to reduce the transmission of Covid-19 in schools, although none of these measures take the risk to zero," she said in a video on the Rand website.
Flaherty and her colleagues suggested that schools space students apart as much as possible, expanding classes to other facilities such as libraries and community centers, if necessary; trying a week-on, week-off schedule so students and teachers have some consistency with instruction; having teachers rotate among small groups of students; and hiring tutors to work with students when teachers are unavailable.
A hybrid model of in-person and remote instruction might be one of the most important ways schools can reduce the transmission of Covid-19, researchers at Mathematica, a policy and research firm, found.
Examining 400,000 simulations of possible virus transmission in schools, researchers found that schools can "dramatically" lower the chance of an outbreak by combining a hybrid schedule with strict safety protocols, like wearing masks and eliminating in-person social interactions outside of class.
Researchers also found that temporarily closing schools when an outbreak occurs is a less effective way to control the virus than adopting a hybrid model and enforcing safety protocols to begin with.
But no method is foolproof, researchers said.
"The possibility that schools could exacerbate the pandemic is a serious concern," they said on the Mathematica website. "Every school that is opening its building to students - part time or full time, starting now or later in the school year - needs to prepare for the likelihood that a student or staff member will become infected with COVID-19, and have a plan in place for what to do next."
Still, some believe that the benefits of reopening schools outweigh the risks - especially for students for whom distance learning has been a struggle, or whose parents work.
Distance learning has been a fiasco for too many students, especially those who were already at risk of falling behind, and it exacerbated an achievement gap in California that was among the widest in the country even before the pandemic, said Samantha Tran, senior managing director for education at Children Now, an advocacy and research organization.
Students who lack reliable internet access, technical devices or a quiet place for online learning are falling dangerously behind their peers academically, she said. And many other students - even those with adequate technology at home - are simply not engaged in school, she said.
"We're talking about significant learning loss. Months and months and months," she said. "It's a serious equity issue. These kids have a fundamental right to an education, and they're not getting it right now."
Berkeley health officials are allowing more public activities indoors and outdoors beginning Friday because COVID-19 cases and test positivity rates have been stable, city officials said Thursday.
The new rules go in to effect at 8 a.m. following a revised health order.
Indoor dining, indoor worship services, indoor movie theaters and indoor family entertainment centers can all open at 25 percent capacity or a maximum of 100 people, whichever is less, according to city officials.
Some previously open activities will now be able to accommodate more people. Indoor retail stores and malls can open at 50 percent capacity.
Indoor gyms and fitness centers can open at 25 percent capacity and indoor weddings and funerals can accommodate up to 100 people or open at 25 percent capacity. Singing and chanting continue to be prohibited at worship services as well as weddings and funerals, according to city officials.
Twenty students and two instructors can participate in non-contact outdoor fitness classes.
Performances that are livestreamed or recorded are now allowed indoors with some restrictions, city officials said. Also, with some restrictions, health officials are allowing music, film and television production indoors and outdoors.
Neither indoor nor outdoor live performances are allowed yet.
Even though more indoor activities are allowed, businesses that can serve people outdoors are encouraged to maximize that opportunity.
Business must comply with state guidance, which can be found at:
https://covid19.ca.gov/industry-guidance/
and city guidance, which can be found in Appendix A at:
Check out their #2 and #4 signatures on this remarkable letter. It’s designed to intimidate the Bay Area’s regional transportation agency, MTC, into dropping a mandate that large employers allow 60% of their employees to work from home by 2050. MTC’s goal is to slash the climate impacts of daily commuting.
Here’s the background: Sen. Scott Wiener (the letter’s actual author), Skinner, and Wicks have spent their whole past term trying to destroy local governments’ land-use authority, to force lots more dense luxury housing into Bay Area communities. This was allegedly intended to reduce the climate impact of long-distance commuting.
Now a regional agency offers a direct, effective, and measurable tool to reduce GHG emissions at their source. (By counteracting employers’ archaic demands for workers to show their faces in offices.) And incredibly, the three oppose it.
They’ve dragooned several other Bay Area legislators – who should know better – into signing the letter. (We’re happy to at least not see a signature from Berkeley mayor Jesse Arreguin.)
The signers have different motivations. San Francisco’s and San Jose’s mayors are transparently trying to shore up downtown real-estate interests. Tech firms’ demand for office space has exploded commercial rents, kicked civic amenities like art galleries out of downtown San Francisco, and inflamed our decade-long nightmare of soaring housing costs and displacement.
Now the pandemic has taught most white-collar organizations to be effective at working remotely. The best-positioned are the tech companies, which were already offshoring work – to places like Bangalore and Indiana – to escape exactly the vicious cycle of high salary demands and high housing costs they’d created here. Their office buildings have become empty, expensive white elephants – bearing sky-high leases that won’t be renewed.
But what’s motivating Wiener, Skinner, and Wicks, the Three Displaceketeers? They yelp about potential harm to transit agencies, but that’s patently false. Pre-pandemic, the region’s biggest transit operator, BART, was straining capacity because of all the office workers clambering into downtown San Francisco. The proposed work-from-home mandate – building on today’s work-from-home reality – is a huge relief valve. It would allow BART to actually function, without huge new capital investments which have no likely source.
What’s really eating the Displaceketeers is losing their ability to micromanage everyone’s lives – forcing us into the dense, “walkable,” high-priced urban Wienervilles and Skinnervilles they prescribe for all of us. And further constraining our lives with new costs and miseries, like MTC’s lurking notion of turning every foot of regional freeways into an expensive toll lane.
Meanwhile, the Displaceketeers keep raking in huge donations from big developers. And preaching mass restraint and suffering to save the climate, while they (presumably) drive fat State-funded SUVs between the Bay Area and Sacramento, every day the Legislature is in normal session.
This election is a chance to send a message about this kind of arrogant hypocrisy. That’s why we urge votes for Skinner’s and Wicks’ challengers, Jamie Dluzak and Sara Brink. And if you live in San Francisco, you have the far greater honor of helping to retire Wiener – the mastermind of all this mischief – by voting for progressive challenger Jackie Fielder.
Those of us who live in California are residing in the third worst state with regard to unemployment. The current unemployment rate is 13.3 percent; There are more than two million without jobs, which is twice as many as last year.
But although the unemployment rate nationally is 9.7, which is considerably lower, the rate has begun to climb recently, The unemployment rate in February was only 3.5 percent, but has since more than doubled. The considerable increase in just a few months is certainly worrisome.
Although a high rate of unemployment is serious, an additional concern is long term unemployment. If the joblessness is short it is very unlikely to be too worrisome.. But long term joblessness will very likely involve substantial deprivations. When cutbacks are severe and routine, then poverty is around the corner.
Our task is to connect and understand this unholy trinity which is how these three issues, unemployment, long term joblessness, and poverty are linked.
But to make sure you got it right, avoid the Bureau of Labor statistics, which is the agency that is responsible for providing you with false estimates on unemployment issues. Jobless workers who haven’t actively looked for work in the last four weeks no matter why are not counted as unemployed, For example the explanation by thousands of job seekers that they need to work but were discouraged is always considered inadequate. No exceptions.
In fact, about seven million workers who are unemployed and who should be counted as jobless are not counted even though they claim that they want a job now,
Among those who have been especially hard hit are African Americans. It is not only because their unemployment rate is high. Substantial numbers have been without jobs for at least six months. Just how many? The long-term unemployed for Blacks accounted for 45.5 percent of their unemployment. So many of these jobless workers were forced into poverty. Notice the connections between high unemployment, long term unemployment, and poverty.
Although not as severe, young job seekers, between the ages of 16 to 24 have been experiencing a high rate of unemployment. Their unemployment rate is 18.5 percent, Why so high? An obvious explanation is their lack of experience. However, many jobs do not require skills or could be easily learned. A more relevant explanation, which high unemployment numbers suggest, is that there are not enough jobs to go around. As a general rule, when you see a large number of workers classified as unemployed, don’t blame the victims. Last year the unemployment rate for youth was half the current number. So to understand the trends, we need to look at the shortcomings of the economy and what government is doing and not doing.
About the problem of poverty, which is impacting a growing number of workers, blame the federal government. According to a study conducted by Columbia University, 8 million Americans have fallen into poverty as a direct result of the government refusing to renew the $600 weekly supplemental unemployment checks which expired in July.
What then should be done?. The money to address the issues is available. Working people for the most part have been paying taxes all their working lives. But corporate America has been successful avoiding their tax obligations. Now the government must provide millions of jobs as it did during the 1930s depression, A growing number of the poor are already going hungry. This is not only wrong .It is criminal.
I hope my Skeptical Voter's Slate Card has already convinced you to vote against Berkeley Measure HH. This misleading ballot measure would raise our already-high utility tax to pay for greenwashed nonsense, or…anything else the City Council chooses to spend the General Fund on. But if you’re still unconvinced, the Council will soon reveal just how wastefully it might spend your money.
On their Oct. 27 Agenda is the remarkable Item 25, sponsored by the same Councilmember who championed HH. This would switch the City onto the most-expensive, least-competitive electrical rate available. Which would cost taxpayers at least an extra $94,000 a year.
The really remarkable part? It would do this just when PG&E's 100%-solar option is the cheapest option available – cheaper even than conventional dirty power. Also, this item was nearly written to also force all Berkeley residents and businesses onto the same bad plan.
So I’ve got two recommendations now: Mark your ballot No on HH. And also ask the Council and the Mayor to vote against Item 25 – unless it’s amended to instead specify only the affordable PG&E Solar Choice.
What Item 25 currently calls for is to “upgrade” municipal electrical accounts to East Bay Community Energy’s (EBCE’s) “Renewable 100” rate, which the item describes as providing greener power “for a relatively small premium” over current rates. But in fact, Renewable 100 is a disaster, and EBCE is itself a dumpster fire. This is a “community choice aggregator” that’s somehow failed to use its purchasing power to offer green power at rates remotely competitive with its supplier…which remains PG&E.
If you look at EBCE’s rate comparisons, they show that for virtually all ratepayer categories, Renewable 100 – the orange column on the right – is significantly more expensive than any other plan. The lowest-cost plan? For almost everyone, it’s PG&E Solar Choice, the dark-blue column second from the left. Solar Choice supplies 100% renewable energy – either 50% or 100% solar-generated, depending on how you buy it. (I’m a past Solar Choice customer, on my way back to that plan after opting out of EBCE ‘s mess.)
EBCE’s own FAQ acknowledges that Solar Choice is the most cost-effective option:
Why is PG&E’s Solar Choice the lowest-priced power option in 2020?
PG&E’s Solar Choice is a voluntary program for PG&E bundled service customers, that allows them to get 50% or 100% of their electricity from solar power. On EBCE’s 2020 joint rate mailer, the PG&E Solar Choice sample bill cost is lower than EBCE’s sample bill cost for all rates except large commercial and agriculture. In fact, Solar Choice is less expensive than the PG&E standard service in 2020. … For more information, visit pge.com/solarchoice; call 1-877-743-8429; or email solarchoice@pge.com.
If any Berkeley Councilmember were looking out for the environment and for their constituents’ wallets, they wouldn’t try to switch the City’s power purchases to EBCE’s wasteful, costly Renewable 100. They’d be advocating a switch to clean, affordable Solar Choice, as the obvious best option. (Remember that hateable PG&E remains the supplier, either way.)
What’s going on here instead is little government (Berkeley Councilmembers) trying to prop up failed medium government (EBCE) with $94,000 a year of our taxes. Which is repulsive.
EBCE’s failure is so sad as to seem almost willful. An aggregator’s whole rationale is to combine thousands of customers’ purchasing power to negotiate lower power rates. But if you look back at the rate comparisons, even EBCE’s “Brilliant Choice” plan – their lowest-cost, for a conventional power mix – is only trivially cheaper than conventional PG&E (left blue column).
Meanwhile, both of EBCE’s carbon-free tiers are priced significantly higher than PG&E Solar Choice. Worse, EBCE’s middle tier – “Brilliant 100,” a mix of solar, wind, and big hydro – is closed to everyone except its existing customers, because EBCE can’t make it pay off even at the rates they’re charging.
This is a big, sad lesson in how good intentions can slam into poor execution. But there’s no rationale for excusing this, much less subsidizing it.
If Alameda County couldn’t competently make green power work on a regional scale, do you really think Berkeley’s haphazard little government will achieve anything meaningful for the climate with the extra 2.5% to 5% that Measure HH would authorize it to slap onto our utility bills?
The clear answer here is no and no. No to the utility tax hike, and no to wasting $94,000/year of existing taxes on bailing out EBCE’s mistakes.
The National Association of Realtors Fund (NARF) has now spent $107,517.28 supporting four of the candidates running on the “Homeowners for Rent Board” slate in this year’s election. A couple of campaign mailers were paid for with some of these funds and more may be on the way.
Another outside group, the Committee for Ethical Housing, has reported spending $28,779.85 supporting all five members of this slate. Major Funding for this oddly named committee comes from Highview Strategies in Sacramento. Berkeleyside reports that Russell Lowery, managing partner of High View Strategies, made the donations. Berkeleyside further reports that Lowery is executive director of the California Rental Housing Association.
One of the “Case Studies” listed on High View Strategies Web site is a campaign to defeat a rent control initiative. They say they developed “a winning messaging strategy”. The messaging on the mailer this group sent out in Berkeley seems to consist of trying to associate this year’s landlord slate with affordable housing. They are called the “pro-affordability slate”. An effort is made to associate this slate with the words “affordable” and “sustainable”. Of course, if groups that don’t like rent control like the California Rental Housing Association had their way, rents would be even higher in Berkeley than they already are.
Together these two outside groups have so far spent $136,297.13 to support this slate. This is a record amount of spending in a rent board election. By contrast the five members of the slate nominated by the 2020 Berkeley Tenants Convention have so far (as of Oct 22) collectively reported raising a bit less than $25,000.
To provide a more accurate description, the NARF-backed slate should really be named the Homeowners and Rental Property Owners slate. All five live in the city’s more affluent single family home zoned neighborhoods in or near the Berkeley hills, four in District 6 and one in District 5. At least three own rental property. None of them are tenants and none live in majority tenant or mixed homeowner/tenant neighborhoods of Central, South or West Berkeley .
African-Americans make up a significant part of Berkeley’s tenant population but they have no representation on this slate. If this slate sweeps the election, there will be no African American representation on the Rent Board. That would be a strange outcome in a city where Black Lives Matter signs are ubiquitous.
A smattering of landlords have put up signs supporting the slate in front of their apartment buildings, often paired with signs opposing Proposition 21. Prop 21, supported by the California Democratic Party and tenant and progressive groups, would allow cities to establish rent control on apartments that are more than 15 years old. Where new rent control is implemented, landlords would be allowed to increase rents up to 15% during the first three years after a new renter moves in.
In Berkeley, if Prop 21 passes, it would be possible to implement rent control on newer buildings built after 1980 that are at least 15 years old. Rents in buildings built between 1998 and 2005, when a substantial amount of new housing was added in Berkeley, have rents today that are much higher than when they first opened and tenants have no protection against large annual increases. Once under rent control, rents could only go up annually by the amount of the annual general adjustment which is based on a formula tied to increases in landlord costs. This creates a more stable situation for tenants. Rents could still be adjusted to market at vacancy under existing law.
It is October 24, 2020 and Berkeley along with a large swath of northern California is under another red flag warning with power shutoffs looming for those living in the highest risk areas. What a difference it would mean if the mixed-use projects (apartment buildings with a restaurant or commercial space on the first floor) in Berkeley were built like Soleil Lofts in Herriman, Utah. https://archive.curbed.com/2019/8/27/20835206/apartment-solar-salt-lake-city-loft
It sounds like a futuristic fantasy, an apartment complex covered with solar and filled with storage batteries to make the complex a virtual power plant. Of course, there are the reasonably priced units and appealing amenities. It is an interesting project to watch and study and a stark contrast to Berkeley which can’t seem to even process an ordinance to require bird safe glass in new construction.
The plus side of Zoom is the possibility of tuning into meetings that would otherwise be impossible to track. The downside of attending is to see how work is batted back and forth between council, policy committees, and the handful of commissions and quasi-legislative bodies that are allowed to meet during the pandemic. This week of Zoom brought some unexpected surprises, and I expect that by revealing them I will be off at least one invite list.
As mentioned in the Activist’s Calendar not everyone is excited by the new Civic Center Plan. Former Mayors Tom Bates and Loni Hancock joined the Civic Arts Commission subcommittee meeting on Civic Center Visioning Friday morning. While some of us thought Tom and Loni (domestic partners as well as political allies) were actually retired from city business, it was evident that they are still quite active. Tom and Loni opined that they didn’t think the new city council chambers should be built in Civic Center Park. Their suggestion was that the new council chambers could possibly be built behind the post office. It seems there is a group that has been meeting with Downtown Business Association Executive Director John Caner to come up with alternative plans. The Civic Arts Commission members have their eye on including a visual arts center, since so much emphasis has been placed on performance arts.
It is all very interesting that while segments of Berkeley are thinking about grandiose plans to gentrify Civic Center Park in the model of San Francisco Civic Center Plaza, the remaining small activist Black community in South Berkeley is struggling for attention for an African American Holistic Center. The international consultants, Gehl, seem to have secured their jobs through mission creep and an enthusiastic council dreaming of new digs instead of sharing underutilized space with BUSD. The payment to Gehl is at this point only $76,000 over the initial allocation of $300,000, but we can expect that to continue to grow. Should we be surprised that a proposal to assess the seismically unsafe old city hall in order to develop a plan to retrofit it so council could return is turning into the push and pull of Berkeley’s power brokers looking for their piece of the action? It should be interesting. All of this swirls in the middle of a pandemic that is gaining steam with super spreader rallies across the country and increasing business closures.
Berkeley for the present has avoided rampant spread of COVID-19 infections. The 90-page report from the City to be presented at the Council meeting on Tuesday on the response to COVID-19 is sort of interesting in what I couldn’t find, any section on communication and coordination with Alta Bates Sutter Hospital. For all the City’s chest thumping about keeping a hospital in Berkeley, it seems that should have been there, but maybe I just missed it as I was rushing through the last pages to finish my weekly summary of city meetings in hopes of getting some sleep before sunrise.
1921 Walnut St. Association. In collaboration with the ASUC
Saturday October 24, 2020 - 03:41:00 PM
UC Berkeley student representatives have published an open letter decrying UC’s plans to demolish 1921 Walnut St. and build student housing on the parcel. While students desperately want more student housing, they reject the idea that housing should be built at all costs to the community. UC purchased 1921 Walnut St. in July 2020 and since April 2020, UC has openly stated their intentions to demolish the rent-controlled building.
The students criticize both the project itself and the strong-arm tactics of UC administrators to push through their plans without substantive community engagement. The project as currently planned will displace long-term tenants and destroy affordable housing stock in Berkeley. Despite those detrimental outcomes, UC has refused to meet with the tenants of the building and has continued their planning process without meaningfully engaging the communities who will be most affected by the project. The tenants themselves, Berkeley City Council, Berkeley Rent Board, Berkeley Mayor Arreguin and Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association have all denounced UC’s plans for 1921 Walnut St. in formal letters.
Now, the students themselves are directly taking on UC administrators in an escalating effort to steer UC towards more socially conscious housing and development policies. While UC as an institution espouses ideals of integrity, inclusivity and progressive values, in reality UC’s dismissive actions towards 1921 Walnut St. has left the students disillusioned and embittered. In an effort to shape the public education institution they are enrolled in, UC Berkeley students reject the stance that student housing should be built at the expense of the Berkeley community, by evicting long-term tenants from their homes and potentially eliminating rent-controlled housing stock from the Berkeley housing market. In their open letter, the students methodically lay out community concerns for the project, the history of the project itself and reasonable alternatives. Most saliently, the students point out that UC does not need to displace the tenants at 1921 Walnut St. nor does UC have to demolish this building in order to create more student housing. UC is choosing to pursue the displacement of these tenants and not only is that choice heartless, it is also the opposite of being a community partner.
While the UCB students are showing that they embody the values that UC as an institution espouses and represents, why isn’t the UC administration being a better steward of its own legacy? UC is failing to provide moral leadership or accountability to the students, the Berkeley community and the stakeholders of the UC system. In that vacuum, the student themselves are taking on the responsibility to guide the UC administration on ethical housing policies by demanding UC live up to its ethos of inclusion, integrity, accountability, public service and transparency.
We’re writing to you directly with the intention of being as transparent as possible with you, and the entire campus community, about our opposition to University’s potential plans to displace the residents of 1921 Walnut Street.
We’re also writing to you publicly to express our frustration with your administration’s refusal to communicate transparently with the tenants of 1921 Walnut Street and other members of the Berkeley community. We’re compelled to make students aware of the dismissive attitude of the University, and express our solidarity with the tenants of the 1921 Walnut Street Association and the larger Berkeley community. Students do not want to displace other people in the city.
The University is currently developing the Gateway Student Housing Project, which we strongly support. This proposed student housing project is a donor funded, designed, and constructed student housing development for the Berkeley campus on Regent-owned land in downtown Berkeley. This project will create approximately 740-810 beds of apartment-style housing for transfer or upper division students. Given Berkeley’s housing shortage, these beds, part of the Student Housing Initiative, are badly needed. Originally, the Gateway Student Housing Project was designed to encompass a collection of five University-owned parcels while leaving the remaining privately-owned parcel on the block, 1921 Walnut Street, untouched.
According to your Capital Strategies team, the University bought 1921 Walnut St because its private owner came directly to the University to sell the property. They cited an intention to develop the entire block of University Ave, Oxford Street, Walnut Street, and Berkeley Way for long-term student housing and University needs in the downtown Berkeley area.
Tenant Experience:
The Tenants experience with the University of California began with communications concerning the potential acquisition of this property. The first communication from the Regents of the University of California to the tenants at 1921 Walnut St regarding the UC’s plans on April 20th, 2020 was a letter proposed to “undertake the redevelopment of the property” with information of tenant rights under Federal and State law if displacement would occur. This original letter informed the tenants the third party data collection service, Autotemp, would begin collecting tenant relocation data starting April 27th, 2020 with clarification that if relocation occurred, the tenants would be able to stay in their units for “some period of time”. The tenants were understandably concerned that the University was immediately collecting relocation data and extensive amounts of personal information. They tried to bring their concerns to your administration, but they were redirected to Autotemp. Autotemp however couldn’t provide any further information about the UC's development plans, nor how the data would be used, and was only there to collect information on tenants. The tenants were primarily concerned that the University had the intention from the start to displace them without community engagement or feedback on the development of 1921 Walnut.
The tenants formed the 1921 Walnut St. Association to protest the University’s lack of transparency about their plans for their building. They protested the UC’s takeover outside the property on June 29th and raised urgent concerns about being displaced in the middle of a pandemic and losing the protection of the city’s rent ordinances. On August 3rd, after the UC bought the property, the tenants protested their opposition to the purchase at the UC Office of the President. Berkeley City Council and Berkeley’s Rent Board have also voiced their opposition to the building’s demolition.
Student Perspective:
As an elected representative of the student body, my office has consistently called for the construction of more student housing, but we do not want that housing to come at the cost of displacing long-term residents, especially those in rent controlled units. My office, and those of other student body leaders, were adamantly against the inclusion of 1921 Walnut St. in the Gateway Student Housing project from the start. We voiced our concerns to your Government & Community Relations department and Capital Strategies team. We appreciated their assurances you would not evict the tenants during the current shelter in place ordinance. We also recognize you are committed to providing relocation assistance to the tenants for a limited period of time. Our main ask was for your administration to meet with the tenants and answer their concerns. Your capital strategies team said they were not opposed to meeting with the tenants.
However, you have ignored our attempts to schedule a transparent conversation between the University and the tenants. Then, it was made clear by your office you would not hear the concerns of the tenants you were considering displacing based on the letter sent to the tenants on August 31st, 2020 stating: “The University will not be holding in-person or virtual conversations regarding the property for the foreseeable future”. The only reason we found out about this change of policy was when the tenants shared the letter with us.
Not only are we disappointed with the University’s refusal to communicate and be transparent about its plans, but we’re disappointed with the University’s blatant disregard for the entire Berkeley community’s opposition to including 1921 Walnut St in the Gateway Student Housing Project.
The ASUC Transfer Representative, officially elected to serve and represent the interests of transfer students on the UC Berkeley campus, stands in solidarity with1921 Walnut residents and vehemently opposes any housing dedicated to the transfer community that comes at the cost of displacing long term residents. While the transfer community supports the dedication of new housing to serve the needs of transfer students, transfers do not support reaching these goals by displacing others.
As the leader of our University, you have the power to set the terms of the relationship between campus and the surrounding Berkeley community. Students depend on amicable ties between the University and its neighbors. Your administration operates on-campus housing, teaches classes and conducts groundbreaking research. The City regulates off-campus living, runs ambulances and opens parks. When that relationship suffers, as we’ve seen during the protracted litigation between the City and Campus, student needs, like the delayed Upper Hearst project, are sidelined. As in any healthyrelationship, your administration, the city and our neighbors around Berkeley must all be willing to make compromises. But you have the power to take the first step and change the narrative about Campus’ role in the Berkeley community. If you agree to listen to the tenants of 1921 Walnut Street and choose not to displace them, you’ll demonstrate the University’s commitment to inclusivity instead of displacement, affordability instead of gentrification, and transparency instead of secrecy. You have a chance to change this story.
As the elected representative of our campus’ 40,000 students, I ask that you listen to the tenants and pledge not to demolish 1921 Walnut Street and preserve the tenancy of the current tenants throughout the planning, development, construction, and administration of The Gateway Student Housing Project.
It is understandable that as factionalized as Pacifica is there will be opposition to the new Bylaws.
When I first came to Pacifica I noticed that the Board was divided into factions. I accepted that that was the natural order of things, so I aligned with one of the factions. But I began to see things differently after I did a stint as the Secretary of the Pacifica National Board in 2017. Pacifica is not in danger of being hijacked by one faction or another. Pacifica has been hijacked by factionalism, and all sides are at fault. The dazzling lack of cooperation is crippling.
Each side thinks that everything will be fine once their side prevails. Each side is caught in an endless cycle of demonizing and distrusting the other. But the main problem is the current governance structure which creates and perpetuates factionalism.
However, many people are against changing the Bylaws. They warn of: corporate coup/takeover, turning Pacifica into NPR, etc.
Disinterested and knowledgeable third parties have been saying for years that Pacifica needs to change its governance and have made many constructive suggestions. New Day Pacifica Bylaws incorporates many of these suggestions.
Carol Spooner, who was the co-author of the current Bylaws said, “The New Day Pacifica Bylaws will correct excesses of the present bylaws by reducing the size of the board, getting the Local Station Boards out of station management, and having direct elections of National Board Members, rather than our present, baroque two stage voting process.”
Many listeners also have asked "How would the NDP Bylaw Reforms help Pacifica financially?" Listeners, donors and philanthropists want to donate to help stable, viable organizations grow. Pacifica's Boards have a well-known history of being chaotic and unstable, so efforts to make Pacifica more stable will encourage donors to step up to the plate, as a recent development shows.
As you may know, Pacifica was facing a $3.2 Million payment in April, where KPFA, KPFK and KPFT’s buildings were on the line. Jan Goodman of KPFK talked to the lender, FJC, giving them updates on Pacifica's progress towards getting its audits more current and explained how Pacifica membership is seriously considering bylaw reform. FJC was encouraged enough to offer to extend the entire loan to Pacifica for another year, without any additional costs to Pacifica.
In its letter to Pacifica, FJC explained their motivation: "We hope this potential one year extension will allow Pacifica to financially stabilize, reorganize its structure, as well as hire professional, experienced management, so that it can grow its listenership and thus its donor base... we look forward to working with your team, including Ms. Goodman, to facilitate this."
We have a window of opportunity. Our historical enmity might prevent us from seizing it, or we can come together to fix our governance.
Over 3,000 Listeners and Staff have endorsed the New Day Pacifica Bylaws. Join them by signing the petition at www.newdaypacifica.org
The final 2020 presidential debate didn't change the minds of Democrats and Republicans. This was a debate targeted for the very few undecided voters They saw a memorable conflict between "Mister Rogers" (Biden) and "Crazy Uncle Don" (Trump).
Over the past few months it's become banal to describe Donald Trump as crazy but an operational definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over" and that's what Trump has done. Trump has stuck to the same dysfunctional strategy and his situation hasn't improved. Since January Biden has been ahead of Trump in the 538 average of national polls; at first by around 5 percent, then, in the summer, by around 8 percent, and now by 10 percent. Biden is winning and Trump seemingly doesn't know what to do about it.
Trump's dysfunction has 5 components:
1.Trump sole focus is on his base. It's been clear to every political observer that Trump can't win the election unless he expands his base beyond 40 percent of the electorate. Trump isn't doing this and over the course of the year has lost several key constituencies that supported him in 2016: suburban housewives, older voters, white college graduates, and self-identified "Independent" voters.
In last night's debate, Trump did nothing to expand his base. In this sense, he lost. The after-debate CNN poll (https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/22/politics/cnn-poll-final-presidential-debate/index.html ) indicated that "53% of voters who watched the debate said that Biden won the matchup, while 39% said that [Trump] did." A related CNN poll of 11 undecided voters found that 9 thought Biden had won and 2 thought the debate was a tie.
2.Trump's communication strategy has only three components: campaign rallies, appearances on Fox News, and tweets. To repeat the obvious: with this communication strategy, Donald doesn't reach voters outside his base.
In the debate, Trump used his "Fox News" persona, particularly in attacking Biden and his family -- the unfounded allegation that Biden's son, Beau, acted as a "bag man" for Joe. If you weren't a regular Fox News viewer, you found Trump's allegations incomprehensible.
3. Trump's 2020 campaign doesn't have a coherent theme. In 2016, he used "Make America Great Again." He's been forced to reuse this but it doesn't have the same punch. ("Make America Great Again, Again" doesn't work.)
In 2016, every Trump rally featured three chants: "Build the wall," "Drain the swamp," and "Lock her up." In 2020, Trump can't use "Build the wall" because he has failed to build his much-touted wall. Trump can't use "Drain the swamp" because during his White House residency he has become king of the swamp. And he can't use "lock her up" because he is no longer running against Hillary Clinton -- and he can't convince the American public that Joe Biden needs to be locked up.
In the debate, Trump tried to use the "lock her up" tactic against Biden; it didn't work. Trump had no fall back strategy; he did not give viewers -- outside his base -- a reason to vote for him.
4. Trump blew his big chance. In January, when warned about the possibility of a coronavirus pandemic, Trump dismissed this, (“We have it totally under control.") A month later, he still didn't take the pandemic seriously: "This is like a flu...One day, it's like a miracle, it will disappear." For several critical months, Trump failed to show leadership; this fed the pandemic and led to the collapse of the economy.
The debate opened with a discussion of the Coronavirus pandemic. Trump said, "We're learning to live with it." Biden pounced: "He says that,,, we're learning to live with it. People are learning to die with it... Learning to live with it? Come on. We're dying with it, because he's never said... it's dangerous." "220,000 Americans dead. If you hear nothing else I say tonight, hear this. Anyone who's responsible for not taking control... anyone who is responsible for that many deaths should not remain as President of the United States of America.... [Trump] still has no plan."
Summary: Two things jumped out of the debate. The first was that, while Trump was better behaved, the split-screen -- that showed both candidates at the same time -- consistently showed Trump as disdainful and antagonistic. Trump sneered but did not laugh. Biden occasionally laughed at something -- a perceived lie -- that Trump said. (This difference in affect was reflected in the CNN poll: "Favorable views of Biden before the debate stood at 55%, and they held steady at 56% in post-debate interviews. Likewise, Trump's numbers held steady, with 42% saying they had a favorable view of the President in interviews conducted before Thursday's debate and 41% saying the same afterward.... 60% of women said Biden won, 35% Trump."
Biden responded to these with incredulity: "c'mon." (Come on) In presidential debate history, Biden's "c'mon" will be noted along side Ronald Reagan's "There you go again." For example:"[Trump says] ‘Oh, don't worry. [The pandemic] is all going to be over soon.’ Come on, there's not another serious scientist in the world who thinks it’s going to be over soon." With regards to the solvency of Social Security and Medicare: "I mean, the idea that Donald Trump is lecturing me on Social Security and Medicare? Come on." With regards to race relations: "Here is one of the most racist presidents we've had in modern history. He pours fuel on every single racist fire, every single one... Come on. This guy has a dog whistle about as big as a fog horn."
The moderator, Kristen Welker, concluded with this question to Trump and Biden: "Imagine this is your Inauguration Day. What will you say in your address to Americans who did not vote for you?" Trump responded: "Success is going to bring us together. We are on the road to success. But I’m cutting taxes and [Biden] wants to raise everybody’s taxes. And he wants to put new regulations on everything. He will kill it. If he gets in, you will have a depression, the likes of which you've never seen."
Biden responded to Welker's question: "I will say, ‘I’m the American president. I represent all of you whether you voted for me or against me. And I'm going to make sure that you’re represented. I’m going to give you hope... what is on the ballot here is the character of this country. Decency. Honor. Respect. Treating people with dignity. Making sure that everyone has an even chance.'"
Biden won the debate.
Bob Burnett is a Bay Area writer and activist. He can be reached at bburnett@sonic.net
David Carradine starred in the 1970's TV series "Kung Fu," in which he demonstrated considerable knowledge of that Martial Art (albeit his abilities were exaggerated for the program). He died not so many years ago in bizarre circumstances that I won't go into.
Glorification of violence doesn't make it in my book of ethics, even if you are portraying the protagonist as the person who supposedly wants peace. Yet, I don't always follow this ethic when I am writing fiction for publication, since I am trying to write something that will sell.
Carradine's character demonstrated a great deal of physical flexibility, which is superior in many cases to inflexible, brute force attempts at overpowering an opponent. Flexibility helps in many areas of life. When we continue to be able to learn new things, and to change our methods of operations to match what works--while abandoning something that doesn't work any longer, or that never worked, we are demonstrating a high level of sanity.
This is what I'm getting at: The willingness to take medication is not enough to move forward in life. The mental health treatment system wants more from us than that. And we need the mental health treatment system more than it needs us.
I am accepting help from the Putnam Clubhouse in Concord in my efforts to seek employment. This feels to me like a risk, not only to my ego, but to retaining full credit for my writing. However, I have been out of the conventional work force for about twenty years, and I am clueless concerning the expectations as they currently are--they won't be the same as they were in the nineteen-eighties for a young man in his twenties. And I'm not on a regular daily schedule. Additionally, my sleep schedule is all over the map, my grooming level varies a lot, and I don't have decent clothes that would be acceptable in a job.
Writing generates either tiny amounts of money or no money. And my SSDI/SSI isn't enough. Additionally, the increased contacts with people, brought about by employment, even if I am connecting with people through email and Zoom, will be good for my mental condition.
Most of those who have money are good with people. If you are unable to deal with human beings, you can't earn money. This is because if you want money, you need to get it from someone. The closest you can come to earning money without dealing with people would be app-based driving. I tried that. I was on the freeway doing 65 miles per hour and the phone was prompting me to respond to another job request. Not safe for someone who already has enough difficulties.
The mental health treatment system wants to keep an eye on us. They want to be sure that we are not going to do anything that will disrupt the business community, disrupt taxpayers' lives, or do anything that might frighten people. In some instances, they may find ways to bob our levels of success. We must gently let them know that we really intend to be successful, even while we accommodate them in their wishes to keep our act orderly.
Many people with mental illnesses are subject to restraint via poverty--and this is miserable. But it is not as miserable as being kicked out of society entirely, becoming homeless, and/or being incarcerated. We may need to accept that we will be subject to some level of supervision in our lives. This is because there are a lot of people who like society as it currently exists, without a lot of people creating chaos when they go in the morning to Starbuck's before work.
If we have a history of being a disruption to social order, even if we aren't violent, people in positions of authority will be nervous about allowing us to have any kind of power.
Although accepting help from the clubhouse seems like I am allowing myself to be infantilized and not acknowledged for what I've accomplished, I've been able to carve out a middle ground for my own benefit, so that I might have a better chance of succeeding at something I haven't tried in many years. And there are others who have already done exactly the same thing.
The New York Times assessment of the final presidential debate was brutally succinct: "Asked about the environment and race, Trump did not mention the environment or race." "Trump, the current president, tries to paint himself as the outsider against Biden." "In their closing statements, Trump attacks Biden while Biden offers a vision for the country."
With his mass appeal for national unity over division, science over fiction, and truth over lies, Joe Biden exposed Donald Trump as the criminal he is. In other words, the Biden-Trump face-off was a case of Mass Demeanor versus Misdemeanor.
Saluting Our Founding Youngsters
Most history books encourage us to revere the Founding Fathers as a uniquely gifted band of wise elders when, in fact, most of them were rabble-rousing twenty-somethings. Check it out: On July 4, 1776, Aaron Burr was 20, Alexander Hamilton 21, Nathan Hale was 21, Betsy Ross was 24, James Madison was 25, John Jay 29, and Thomas Jefferson a ripe old 33. At the extremes, James Monroe was only 18 when he stood up to King George while Ben Franklin filled the "wise old elder" profile at a well-seasoned 70 years of age.
Why do schoolbooks downplay this youth-empowering message? Might it have something to do with protecting that nemesis called the "status quo"—rule by venerated, older, entrenched, establishment figures (business leaders, politicians, military officers, and the like). If revolutionary change is the goal, we might be better off applauding the agitation of younger Americans—those who are more likely to be marching in the streets than lunching in corporate high-rise office suites.
Fight Fires but Save the Bullet Train
Same old news: New week; New fires.
John Cox, a 2018 gubernatorial campaigner who is now Chair of Citizens for Honest and Non-partisan Government Effectiveness (CHANGE) California, thinks the solution is simple: “This is common sense. Get overwhelming force on a fire. Douse it before it becomes an inferno that is incredibly difficult to put out.” All it would take is an “Air Armada,” composed of at least 60 fire-fighting aircraft ready at a moment’s notice to fly in and douse fires. Cox has proposed financing his plan by defunding the state's $80 billion-dollar high-speed rail system.
Cal Fire was unimpressed, noting that the state already has a fleet of "more than 50" aircraft that can reach fires "within 20 minutes." As Cal Fire spokesperson Scott Mclean told CBS 13: "We would like to see more aircraft, but there is a point where too many is too much,”
Here's another thought. In California, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, heroic firefighters are exhausted from working 24-72-hour shifts, on duty for up to 14 days, cutting brush and dousing flames in extreme weather conditions. They could use some help.
The Pentagon currently has more than a million army soldiers, sailors, aircraft pilots and National Guard troops at the ready on bases scattered in every state in the US (with the sole exception of Vermont). What if the Department of Defense were to put just 100,000 of these stateside troops to work fighting wildfires in the West and rescuing flood and hurricane victims in the South and East?
The Pentagon also has a pretty substantial "Air Armada" of its own (not to mention fleets of boats and powerful all-terrain vehicles).
The Army's mission is supposed to be "defending America." This would be a good way to prove it.
Ironic Footnote
In Oregon, rampaging firestorms have turned entire towns into smoking rubble within minutes. Some of these towns might have been saved if the state's entire fleet of fire-fighting National Guard helicopters (four Back Hawks and six Chinooks) had been available to fight the fires. Unfortunately, four of Oregon's Chinnoks are currently overseas in Afghanistan helping to support Washington's decades-long military intervention in that country.
Kudos to Two Berkeley Businesses
Shoppers at the Trader Joe's outlet in downtown Berkeley got a nice surprise this week. As we were approaching the checkout counter, the clerk greeted us with an unexpected question: "Would you like a complimentary loaf of pumpkin bread?"
There were no catches: just part of TJ's annual celebration of All Things Pumpkin.
And in West Berkeley, I drove over to Berkeley Auto Body to get an estimate to repair a scrape on my car. The helpful guy on duty, rose from behind his desk and walked outside to assess the damage.
He estimated it would cost around $200 to repair the scrape.
I was about to schedule an appointment when he said: "Wait a minute. I think I can take care of this."
He returned to the building, opened up a side door, grabbed a large bottle of industrial solvent, a rag, and a bottle of touch-up paint. Next thing I knew, he was down on the sidewalk, scrubbing away at the ding. After getting it clean, he got on his knees and carefully painted over the multiple scratches with strokes of matching paint. He finished the touch-up in under ten minutes, leaving the damaged door looking almost as good as new.
When I asked how much he wanted for the work, he shrugged and said it was "fairly simple" and "on the house."
"Excuse me," he said with a smile. "Now I have to get back to my paperwork."
I gave him $10 and a big smile.
Fox's Flyover Flap
Fox Sports broadcasters Joe Buck and Troy Aikman recently took some heat owing to a hot-mic moment—a flippant, not-off-mic exchange that followed a military flyover at the start of an NFL broadcast. To set the scene for the following, please note: due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the football stadium was mostly empty.
"That's your hard-earned money and your tax dollars at work!" Buck rejoined.
Bearing in mind that football is a real-world metaphor for war, it's not surprising that many sports fans attacked the Fox duo for a lack of patriotism with some even accusing them of "mocking" the military.
But there were many who Tweeted notes of support. Here are a few:
• They are right to call it a waste of money and fuel! How ridiculous is it to fly over nearly empty stadiums before a game? How ridiculous is it even if the stadium was full? The other disturbing thing is the reaction of others calling them unpatriotic or against Vets. I like Troy Aikman a lot more now. Sadly, I think this type of thing will continue no matter who is president.
• What about a petition to be presented to the NFL, NCAA, MLB, and other organizations allowing these flyovers, that they be required to donate the costs of those flyovers and the jet fuel wasted to various environmental groups working to clean up the messes those flyovers create?
• No Flyovers. Instead, dedicate the money saved to housing the country's homeless vets. That's a more humane definition of Patriotism. (Sometimes it's fun to expropriate a word like "patriotism" and use right-wing lingo to put pressure on the DoD-heads.
A-Hole in One
Speaking of wasted kerosene, does anyone know how much jet fuel Trump uses in a year flying off to vacation at his golf course retreats?
Turns out there's an answer to that. There is an actual website called Trump Golf Count that tabulates the taxpayer-bourn costs of each and every one of Trump's golf vacations.
According to the latest edition, since his inauguration, Trump has taken "at least 140" golf vacations at a cost to the taxpayers of around $141 million. For more details (updated as of October 16, 2020) you can click on TGC's complete data table listing Trump's outings and review a breakdown of total costs. You also can read about the new GAO report on the cost of Trump's trips to Mar-a-Lago.
Trump Mulling Defeat?
On October 20, Donald Trump told a crowd of die-hard supporters in Macon, Georgia: “Could you imagine if I lose? My whole life, what am I going to do? I’m going to say, ‘I lost to the worst candidate in the history of politics.’ I’m not going to feel so good. Maybe I’ll have to leave the country?”
Could it be Trump has decided not to attempt a power-grab in a blatant, post-election, SCOTUS-empowered coup?
Could it be that Trump is laying the groundwork for fleeing into exile—opting to become an ex-pat rather than an inmate—just another disgraced despot forced to seek political asylum abroad to avoid serving multiple sentences for numerous crimes in domestic, state, and federal crimes?
If Trump loses the election and is forced to flee the US to avoid jail-time, the obvioius question is: where would he resettle? Surely, the Saudis would be hospitable but the smart money (and the "dark money") says: "Russia."
California's Next Senator
If the Biden-Harris ticket claims victory at the end of this bitterly contested election, California Gov. Gavin Newsom will face a tantalizing question: Who will he appoint to replace Kamala Harris as the new junior US Senator from California?
Back in August, the New York Times ran the numbers and came up with the following list of senatorial wannabees. From the ranks of Latinx legislators, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Secretary of State Alex Padilla. From the Afro-American community, Rep. Karen Bass (D-LA) and our own Rep. Barbara Lee (both were short-listed as potential Biden running mates).
Other potential Newsom picks include: Rep. Katie Porter (D-Irvine), State Senate President Toni Atkins, progressives such as Berniecrat Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Silicon Valley) and a slew of big-city mayors including Eric Garcetti of LA, San Francisco Mayor London Breed, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia. Also on call: Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (known for her wealth and fund-raising prowess) and House Intelligence Committee chair, Rep. Adam Schiff, whose dogged pursuit of Trump during impeachment hearings earned him nearly 2.5 million Twitter followers.
And I've got two more names to add: (1) billionaire businessman, climate activist, and former presidential candidate Tom Steyer and (2) perennial political gadfly Willie Brown.
If Biden Wins
There currently are 53 Republicans serving in the US Senate and not one of them supports the defining characteristic of a democracy—the people's right to a popular vote! Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has spent decades publicly dissing the ballot box. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has described the very idea of direct, popular elections as “devastating.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has criticized the Electoral College as “less than democratic”—but he still defends it.
In a recent snail-mail funding pitch, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) made an appeal for cash to bolster the campaigns of two Democrat challengers—Kathleen Williams of Montana and Alyse Galvin in Alaska. Schiff explained how the election of Williams and Galvin might determine the outcome of November's presidential vote.
"If there is a dispute over which electors to seat," Schiff explained, "that decision would be made by the full Congress. But, under the 12th Amendment, if no presidential candidate gets a majority of the Electoral College votes, the election is decided by the House alone. And that vote would be conducted in a very unusual way—with each state delegation getting a single vote. That means California, with 53 [Electoral College] members, gets the same number of votes as Alaska or Montana, which have only one."
And that means that flipping these two seats, could also flip the delegations, putting Democrats "in a much stronger position in the event the Electoral College ends in a tie or without a majority for Joe Biden."
"Trust me," Schiff wrote, "none of us want it to come to that . . . but we need to prepare for every eventuality."
How to Be a SCOTUS Toady: Grin and Barrett
If obfuscation were a defining characteristic of a Supreme Court Judge, Amy Coney Barrett would be a shoo-in. When Sen. Diane Feinstein asked Barrett if the Constitution gave Trump the right to delay the election, you would expect that Barrettt (a former Notre Dame constitutional law professor), would knock that soft-ball question out of the park. Instead, Barrett smiled and bunted:
"Well Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants, and read briefs, and consult with my law clerks, and talk to my colleagues, and go through the opinion-writing process. So, you know, if I give off-the-cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit, and I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits."
Trump and his GOP enablers are clearly pressing for Barrett's quick confirmation to assure a conservative Supreme Court majority. In the event of a disputed election, Trump's future claims to the presidency could be determined by a majority of Trump-friendly High Court appointees—not by the voters.
When Senator Patrick Leahy asked Barrett if she would recuse herself from any case involving her sponsor's presidential expectations, she released this cloud of gibble-gargble: "I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach." So, no: she would not recuse herself.
Like a Mob Boss, Trump Threatens Schiff
Not so long ago, while Don the Con was venting with Fox and Friends, he set his sights on Burbank Rep. Adam Schiff, suggesting that the Congressman who caused him so much grief during the House impeachment hearings should be "put away" in prison, should be "investigated" by prosecutors, and suggesting (with the oblique menace of an East Coast mob boss) that “he ought to be, you know, something should happen with him.”
It's dangerous talk. Trump spent weeks haranguing Michigan's Democratic Governor Gretchn Whitmer and inviting members of his "army" to "Liberate Michigan." A gang of armed terrorists is now facing prison terms for plotting to kidnap (and possibly kill) Whitmer.
Undeterred by the FBI's disclosure of this plot, Trump continued to lead rallies where his un-masked supporters shouted a “lock her up” chant targeted at Whitmer.
"To be clear," Schiff writes, "this is the same kind of threat and incitement of violence we have come to expect from Trump. It’s the stuff of a tin-pot dictator, not the President of the United States."
Blue Backstories Alarm Peacelovers
The Democratic Party has sent out a funding call to support two "Social Security champions" but the accompanying mini-bios are raising concerns among resolute anti-war democrats. Here are the portions of bios that raised concerns:
MJ Hegar flew helicopters in Afghanistan. When she was injured in the line of duty by enemy gunfire, the military brass barred her from competing for a ground combat position because she was a woman. She fought back and won a change in that outdated policy. . . .
Dr. Al Gross killed a bear in self defense. He won’t take any guff from Republicans who stand in the way of lowering prescription drug prices, and he’ll fight to expand Social Security and Medicare.
And here are a few responses from the pro-peace community.
• Wow! Hard to tell which is cooler, killing bears or killing Afghans.
• I would never have thought to put "killed a bear" on a resumé.
• This makes Mitch McConnell sound adorable by comparison. All he kills is bills.
What did and did NOT happen the week in City meetings October 20 – October 23, 2020. After nearly one year of waiting the Disability Commission was able to present to City Council the Framework for Navigable Cities including the difficulty of navigating in a wheelchair on Berkeley’s failing streets and sidewalks. Migrating and local birds are still waiting for Berkeley to catch up with other Bay Area cities to require bird safe glass - the ordinance was passed by City Council November 12, 2019 and is stalled at the Planning Commission. The 11 home owners with improperly assessed property taxes by Berkeley by being overcharged while larger properties are being undercharged are still waiting for just resolve. The youtube video explains the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh-sEdAn8p4&feature=youtu.be
What is ahead:
Daylight Savings Time ends November 1.
The Ashby and North Berkeley BART Community Advisory Group has “office hours” 5:30 – 6:30 pm Monday and Wednesday.
Tuesday – City Council is at 6 pm nearly everything is on consent. Item 24. is a presentation on the City response to COVID-19.
Wednesday – Police Review Commission 7 pm will finalize the proposed Ordinance on the Use and Acquisition of Controlled Equipment and the Chair will report on the Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing.
Thursday – Various discussions are percolating in Berkeley in response to the Civic Center Plan with concerns and alternatives that came to light at the Civic Arts Commission subcommittee meeting Friday, October 23. There is a follow-up discussion at 11 am on the Civic Center plan. John Caner johncaner@gmail.com is the contact. The Civic Center Plan will be on the LPC agenda November 5. The last published T1 Phase 2 is at 6:30 pm with a focus on the waterfront. There is a Bayer sponsored community meeting on plans for expansion at 6 pm. Preregistration is required.
Sunday, October 25, 2020
No City meetings or events found
Monday, October 26, 2020
City Council Health, Life Enrichment, Equity & Community Committee, 10 am
Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 Meeting ID: 869 7923 0307
Agenda: 2. Listening Session Homeless (15 minutes) 3. Presentation Public Health Implications for unsanitary conditions at Aquatic Park, 4. Report Homeless Outreach during COVID-19 Pandemic, 5. Declare Racism as Public Health Crisis,Unscheduled Items: 6. Service Animals Welcome Training, 7. a.&b. Peoples First Sanctuary Encampment
Agenda Planning for November 10 Regular City Council meeting: CONSENT:1. MOU for Winter Relief Program for Homeless $25,000 from Alameda County, 2. MOU with Fire Fighters Association Local 1227 – 1 yr extension with no changes in compensation, 3. 25 year Lease for 5385 Cazadero Hwy, Cazadero – Performing Arts Camp with 10 yr renew option, 4. Referral Response from City Manager to Include Climate Impacts in City Council Reports, 5. Acceptance of $20,000 grant for utility bill management software analysis, 6. Purchase Order $150,000 for (1) 310SL Backhoe Loader, 7. Purchase Order $200,000 for (1) aerial bucket truck, 8. Councilmembers relinquishment of up to $500 to Berkeley Holiday Fund, 9. Laundry and shower program (already in operation), 10. Refer to CM Resilient Homes Equity Program to provide retrofit improvements to low-income residents, ACTION: 11. Resumption of Fees at Oregon Park Senior Apartments, 12. Resolution accepting Surveillance Technology Report for Automatic License Plate Readers, GPS Trackers, Body-Worn Cameras and Street-Level Imagery Project, 13. 4-stops signs at Eighth at Carleton and Pardee, 14. Implement Protocols for managing City Council Meetings on Zoom, 15. Consider Fire Safety Options for Fire Pit at Codornices Park, Referred Items: 8. COVID-19 on Legislative Bodies, Unscheduled Items: 9. Commission Reorganization for Post COVID Recovery, 10. Officeholder Accounts, 11. Councilmember Office budget relinquishments and grants, Unfinished Business for Scheduling: 1. Kitchen Exhaust Ventilation, 3. No Confidence Vote in the Police Chief. (packet 198 pages)
Ashby and North Berkeley BART Community Advisory Group
Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 Meeting ID: 817 7276 1502
Agenda: 1. Conference with Labor Negotiators, Employee Organizations: Berkeley Fire Fighters Association Local 1227, Local 1227 I>A>F>F>, Berkeley Chief Fire Officers Associations, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 1245, SEIU 1021, Public Employees Union Local 1, 2. Pending Litigation 1444 Fifth Street, LLC v. City of Berkeley, Case #19032434
Teleconference: 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 Meeting ID: 861 5744 1939
CONSENT: 1. 2nd reading 225 University, 2. Minutes, 3. Annual Commission Report, 4. Addendum the Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) with COVID_19 Resiliency Loan Program (CARES Act Recovery), 5. Accept Economic Dashboard update report (pre-covid data), 6. $1,067,302 Formal Bid solicitations, 7. Align BMC definition of smoking with State of CA code to include medical cannabis, 8. Contract $175,000 with Allana Buick & Bers, Inc and Wiss, Janney, Elstner for On-call Citywide Roof Assessment Services. 9. Contract $293,000 with DMR Builders for 125/127 University Tenant Improvement Project, 10. Contract add $660,283 total $1,995,540 and extend to 6/30/2024 with SKIDATA, Inc for Parking Access and Revenue Control systems, 11. Contract add $100,000 total $250,000 and extend to 6/30/2022 with Technology, Engineering and Construction, Inc. for Tank Maintenance and Certification Services, 12. Contract add $150,000 total $432,750 and extend to 12/31/2022 with Direct Line Tele Response for Citywide after-hours answering services, 13. Re-establish Game Day parking restrictions Area K, 14. Renewal of Elmwood BID (Business Improvement District) for 2021, 15. Renewal Solano BID for 2021, 16. a.&b. Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Ordinance Policy and Enforcement Modifications, 17. a.&b. Recommendation to Modify Policies Related to the Enforcement of Smoke-free Multi-Unit Housing Ordinance, 18. Allocate $50,000 to UC Theatre Concert Career Pathways Education Program, 19. Letter to CA Horse Racing Board to investigate treatment and welfare of horses at Golden Gate Fields, 20. Refer to Budget process Allocate $500,000 to require biweekly (once every 2 weeks) cleaning of populated encampment sites and City should partner with appropriate non-profit organizations to create work opportunities for homeless residents who can help City staff clean streets on an ongoing basis, 21. Convert 62nd Street between King and Adeline into one-way toward Adeline, 22. Adopt 2020 Traffic Circle Vegetation Policy and Maintenance Plan, 23. Support for Berkeley Mutual Aid (BMA) services addressing needs of residents during COVID-19 until 3 months after COVID-19 emergency order is lifted $3000/month, ACTION: 24. COVID-19 Response Lessons Learned 2020 Summary Report (work performed by City staff in relation to the pandemic), 25. Resolution to Upgrade Municipal Accounts to 100% Renewable (Electricity service with EBCE), 26. Police Review Commission Work Plan.
Wednesday, October 28, 2020
4x4 Joint Task Force Committee on Housing: Rent Board/City Council, 3 pm,
Agenda: 3. Public comment on agenda items, 5. Chair Report on Mayor’s Working Group on Fair & Impartial Policing, 9. a. Policy Complaint #2478 Regarding fees for towing and storage, b. BPD policy on question the supervised release status of detainees, c. Proposed Ordinance on the Use and Acquisition of Controlled Equipment, (finalize)
Thursday, October 29, 2020
Civic Center Plan community discussion email johncaner@gmail.com for zoom link
Measure T1 Phase 2 – Public Meeting – District Waterfront, 6:30 pm
The Berkeley/Bay Area team behind the anti-Vietnam-war documentary, "The Boys Who Said NO!" just saw their many years of hard work pay off when the film won the Audience Favorite Award for documentaries at the 43rd Mill Valley Film Festival.
The film, which documents the rise of draft resistance in response to Washington's long and devastating war in Vietnam, had its North American Premiere on the festival's opening night and sold out with nearly 1000 tickets purchased—a record at this year's festival. The San Francisco Chronicle has called the film "An ode to the power of activism."
Director and Berkeley resident Judith Ehrlich (whose documentary on Daniel Ellsberg—"The Most Dangerous Man in America"—has also won praise and prizes) joined the production team in announcing the award in a press statement that read:"What a great start for the film. Everyone of you who supported the film should be proud and excited for what you helped create!"
There's one more chance to watch "The Boys" this week. There will be an online screening to close out the United Nations Association Film Festival on Sunday, October 25. The screening is only for viewers in California and it can be watched anytime on that date. Online tickets available here.
Also on Sunday, UNAFF with present Joan Baez (a major participant in the anti-war movement and in the documentary) with the UNAFF Visionary Award following a panel discussion with film director Judith Ehrlich and others. You can get free tickets to the online event here.
