Extra

Back on page A17 in the April 10, 2022 edition of the East Bay Times under the header of Economic Divide is “California’s shrinking population could result in big consequences”. Further down into the article is the quote from Public Policy Institute of California (a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank) demographer Hans Johnson’s new analysis:

“California appears to be on the verge of a new demographic era, one in which population declines characterize the state…Lower levels of international migration, declining birth rates, and increases in deaths all play a role. But the primary driver of the state’s population loss over the past couple years has been the result of California residents moving to other states…The state’s high cost of living, driven almost solely by comparatively high housing costs, remains an ongoing public policy challenge – one that needs resolution if the state is to be a place of opportunity for all of its residents.”

A shortage of housing and the command to build is what is heard over and over. How much housing is needed starts with projections from the California Department of Finance, which are turned over to the Housing and Community Development (HCD) office, which in turn are divvied up to regional and local areas. For the Bay Area it’s the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, of which Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin is President) that assigned Berkeley to provide 8934 new units. And that is broken down further according to housing needs. 2446 units (27%) are to be for extremely low and very low-income households, 1408 units (16%) for low income households, 1416 units (16%) for moderate income households and 3664 units (41%) for above moderate income households, also known as market rate, whatever a landlord chooses to charge for rent. 

The high cost of housing in Berkeley is real, and it often elicits the phrase “I can’t afford (or my child can’t afford) to live in Berkeley.” And it is repeated as if there is no other place to live. One thing the pandemic has demonstrated is that there are jobs that can be done from anywhere, and if that is the case there are options. Here is one listed last Monday that I know of because I stayed there pre-pandemic on a trip; 5 bedroom, 4 bath, 2684 square feet, in perfect move-in condition on 0.28 acres, one block from a nature reserve, in an excellent public school district with student diversity that can be easily seen in class pictures. It’s in a Chicago suburb, listed for $475,000. 

A house like that isn’t Berkeley. Berkeley is where the Community Advisory Group invested nearly two years to develop a joint vision and priorities for the transit oriented mixed-use, multi-unit housing projects sited for the BART Ashby and North Berkeley parking lots. Their vision would be larger 7-story buildings toward Ashby and Adeline and the Ohlone Greenway with stepdown buildings toward the neighborhoods. A taller 12 story complex was included as an alternative (alternatives are required in the Environmental Impact Report). The 12 story alternative was rejected by the City planning department staff because it did not include the project design and development standards, program priorities and open space elements. 

Not everyone is convinced that the Department of Finance has got the numbers right when it comes to the amount of needed housing. That was the subject of the press release of the California State Auditor’s Report published in the April 3^rd edition of the Planet. 

Banners advertising vacant units in the downtown never seem to come down. Elana Auerbach summed it up in her letter to the Planning Commission. According to the 2020 Census, Berkeley has a 9% vacancy rate with 4700 vacant units. That fits the assertion that it is not housing that is needed, it housing that people can afford in the broader context, not just affordable housing as defined by HUD, though that is sorely needed too. 

The long-awaited public hearing at the Planning Commission on the two BART projects was Wednesday April 6^th. 

The response to the projects fell into two camps, and each had its own sample letter which was copied and sent over and over. The talking points were repeated at the public hearing. 

Neighbors of the North Berkeley BART Station and the North Berkeley BART Neighbors Association requested a maximum of 7 stories (the minimum number of stories set by BART) and for maximizing affordable housing. South Berkeley was less vocal, but made their desire for affordable housing clear as their highest priority. The neighborhood seven story request was the same as the City recommendation. 

The YIMBYs and others in the build-tall crowd pushed the minimum of 12 stories with recommendation for going higher, with denser taller housing touted as the answer to climate change. There was a social media campaign directed both at Berkeley residents and those who didn’t live here but wished they did, asking them to show up online at the Planning Commission, which a number did. 

The neighbors asked for a complex that was in scale for the neighborhood of single-family homes. The build-tall crowd countered that it was the residential neighborhood that was out of scale, not their desired 12 story tower as the minimum height. 

After public comment closed, Commission Chair Elisa Mikiten called for a round of general comments to begin the conversation, but conversation and general comment were not on the mind of Ben Gould, there that night as the substitute commissioner for Councilmember Terry Taplin, District 2. Gould jumped quickly to move the YIMBY-backed 12-story alternative over the City staff recommended 7-story maximum. Chair Mikiten tried to bring the recommended number back, pointing out that developers could apply for a density bonus that could bring a 7 story plan to 12 and a 12`story to 18 stories. The YIMBYs won for 12 stories and higher with a 5 to 4 vote.  

The next evening the Housing Advisory Commission (HAC) established a right-of-return preference policy for new affordable housing created via the City’s Housing Trust Fund and Below Market Rate programs. Even though Blacks have suffered displacement disproportionally in Berkeley, meeting discussion included the information that legally the right of return cannot be race-based, and therefore needed criteria independent of race. The HAC approved the following criteria for right of return policy. Displacement due to eminent domain for BART construction was the first (highest) priority, with a separate lottery. That was followed by a preference of one point given for each of the following conditions: displacement from Berkeley due to foreclosure since 2005, families with children, homeless or at risk of homelessness, ties to redlined areas, historical ties to redlined areas and displaced from Berkeley due to eviction within the past seven years. 

The next step is scheduled for May 31^st when City Council will consider the Planning Commission outcome. Hopefully the policy recommendation from the HAC will be considered the same evening. 

At the WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority) meeting on Thursday afternoon, the Board voted to “receive” (not accept) the Berkeley Ferry Service Plan. After reading the documents and attending the meeting, I have some takeaways from the Ferry Pier business plan and ferry service in general. WETA and the ferry service cannot survive without substantial subsidies. 

The recent WETA current ridership survey found ticket price was a very important factor for 59% of respondents in choosing the ferry. It was the pandemic additional subsidies to fares, which made the ferry less costly and competitive with BART, less costly than TransBay bus and driving, which brought these riders to the ferry. From survey comments it appears that if fares returned to pre-pandemic levels, which still don’t come close to covering operational costs (WETA’s minimum is for fares to cover 40% of operating cost), riders would return to other modes of transportation. 

From reviewing the WETA balance sheet of actual revenue and expenses, fares so far this year contribute 15.4% to covering operating costs. The Board voted to continue the pandemic reduced fares which were due to expire in June 2022 for another year. 

It is important to remember that the WETA ferry service between Berkeley and San Francisco was presented as the way to pay for a new / replacement pier. Berkeley would pick up the cost of extending the new pier for recreational use beyond what was needed for ferry service. That cost was portrayed as minor given all the proposed activity and revenue that would come with the ferry. 

The Berkeley Ferry Service Plan paints a different picture, one that includes determining a permanent source to subsidize ferry service not just the capital expenditures to build the infrastructure and purchase the ferries. The Berkeley share of capital costs is described with the nebulous phrase “…costs borne by WETA and the City of Berkeley will be determined at a future date…”  

The Berkeley Ferry Service Plan states, “It is not expected that the City of Berkeley will subsidize operations of the ferry service from its General Fund. However, local (City) funding sources may also be established, similar to the funding provided by a local property tax charged for the Bay Farm Island service or a portion of Contra Costa County sales tax revenue for the Richmond service…One option could include a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) surcharge on hotel night stays in the Marina that would reinvest in the Berkeley waterfront and support maintenance of the pier and shared parking facilities.” 

It should be noted that the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission submitted a proposal in 2021 to City Council for the TOT surcharge to be allocated to the troubled Marina fund instead of the general fund. The City Manager and City Council opposed assigning the TOT collected at the Marina to the Marina. 

There were other troubling inclusions in the Service Plan. The catchment area for ridership is the one to two mile radius around terminals, which leaves Berkeley challenged for future ridership. It is one mile from the terminal to the freeway. The Service Plan assumes shuttle service will be required. WETA has no electric zero-emission vessels, no electric vessel experience and “reliable cost information for zero-emission vessels is limited”. 

The Berkeley Ferry Service Plan read like a document created to support decisions that have already been made. Everyone needs to recognize that ferry rider or not, residents of Berkeley will need to step up and add to other subsidies to keep the proposed Berkeley ferry service afloat once it starts. 

This week I finished Profit and Punishment: How America Criminalizes the Poor in the Name of Justice. The author Tony Messenger, columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, chronicles how the lives of poor are ruined because they are unable to pay fines, court fees for minor infractions. Punishment for nonpayment can lead to driver’s license suspensions and escalate into arrest warrants and languishing in jail because of inability to pay and make bail. Then, in some jurisdictions, the poor are charged room and board for each day in jail. All of it spirals into lost jobs, lost housing, forever debt and, of course, it impacts family and children. 

Messenger’s dogged reporting brought occasional relief to the punished and most important changes to he law. Messenger reminds us that legislative wins aren’t permanent (something we see with Roe vs Wade and the Supreme Court). A watchful eye must always continue as those fines and court fees were used to bolster salaries, retirement packages, expand law enforcement and pay for military policing equipment.  

At the Saturday Berkeley Neighborhoods Council online meeting Andy Johnson described the residential parking meter plan in residential zones as a solution in search of a problem. It seems the City plans to put parking meters in various residential neighborhoods haven’t gone away. And why would it when another consultant has been hired to head it up, and there is a company behind him to collect the management fees? The program is called Smart Space, and if you go to the website you can fill out the survey https://smartspace.goberkeley.info/. 

As I listened to the discussion, I wondered who would be most harmed by the plan and considered it was probably those on the lower rungs of the income ladder. 

I haven’t seen any estimates on how much the City expects to gain from residential parking fees and tickets and whether those estimates will cover the cost of the consultants and the parking management company that comes with the program. We can always search for it in the upcoming budget meetings. 

I wonder if the City Auditor will ever total up for us just how much the City of Berkeley spends on consultants. 

Finally, if we are going to squeeze the gardener, the housecleaner, the caregiver, the family visitor for parking fees in residential neighborhoods, can parking enforcement please ticket the illegally parked cars in the fire zones? 

v