Editorials

Editorial: Electing a Pig in a Poke By BECKY O'MALLEY

Friday April 29, 2005

The central political question at this point in time is not what to do when your candidate loses elections—it’s what to do when your candidate wins. 

Case in point: probably very few of the voters who pulled the lever or punched the card or pressed the button for two worthwhile Democratic congressmen, George Miller and Ron Dellums, understood that their votes were contributing in a significant way to the expansion of organized gambling in Northern California. And yet, Miller, an otherwise excellent legislator, sponsored the shady deal with an obscure tribe which fast-tracked the San Pablo casino, which Diane Feinstein and others are now trying to reverse.  

Dellums sponsored the bill which delivered Point Molate, a regional resource which was formerly a navy base, into the hands of the desperately needy Richmond city council, and thence to the hands of casino developer Jim Levine, a big-time contributor both to Dellums’ hand-picked successor Barbara Lee and the Republican National Committee.  

It’s possible that none of these three fine liberals, Miller, Dellums and Lee, understood the full implications of what was going on with these casinos. Or perhaps they did, and didn’t care, or even approved. But it’s certainly true that Democratic voters up and down the East Bay were not told when they voted for these three that they were voting for more and bigger casinos. Some voters undoubtedly would like more and bigger casinos, but many wouldn’t.  

And how about those who voted for the Oakland school board? See the UnderCurrents column, this issue, for details about what they didn’t know and when they didn’t know it. 

Did the Albany voters for its current leaders realize they might be voting to turn Golden Gate Fields into an enormous themed mega-mall? Maybe not. Do they know it now? 

Did El Cerrito voters know that they were voting support of a utility tax on solar power? I don’t think so, and the courts subsequently agreed. 

Closer to home, did the Berkeley progressives who organized the “draft Tom Bates” campaign three years ago realize they were getting a guy who would do everything he could to grease the skids for big developers? Did they intend to vote for a mayor who would enthusiastically orchestrate gutting the ordinance which has protected our historic resources for more than 25 years? (Department of Self-Defense: I took part in the original draft meetings myself, before I rejoined the ranks of the press. However, I was saved from the ignominy of having attended the “Coronation Convention,” at which the last act of the draft-Tom drama played out, by the birth of my granddaughter in San Francisco.)  

Are many Berkeley progressive or just plain liberal voters watching the City Council meetings often enough to figure out that deliberation has gone out the door? These days, the mayor presides over the meetings in a slap-dash fashion that completely ignores rules of order, both Roberts’ and the council’s own rules, in the interest of speedily rubber-stamping decisions made elsewhere so that Berkeley’s elders can get home to bed. What old-time radicals used to call “the interests” are catered to; needy citizens take second place. Don’t believe me? Watch the proceeding on cable TV or the Internet. 

Case in point: on Tuesday two public hearings were scheduled for the Berkeley City Council. First on the agenda was the hearing on the allocation of public funds to Berkeley’s struggling non-profits. More than two hundred people showed up for this hearing. Second on the schedule was the pro-forma hearing at which the Planning Department advanced its air-tight advocacy for overturning the Landmark Preservation Commission’s designation of the building which houses Celia’s Restaurant as a historic resource. Between five and 10 people were there for this one. 

Now, I yield to no one in my belief that it’s important to consider carefully which historic buildings will be sacrificed to development sites. I know that the company which wants to build on the University Avenue site did an excellent job of working the corporate media to present their case, which put pressure on Berkeley’s Planning Department and City Council to act quickly in their behalf. I am well aware that Berkeley’s preservation proponents who were there to argue the other side are volunteers, with day jobs and families.  

But still, it was wrong, very wrong, for the mayor to insist, and most of the council to agree, that the Celia’s matter should be taken up first on the agenda. This meant that the 200 workers and clients from the non-profits had to sit through 45 minutes of someone else’s public hearing before they had their chance to speak. There could be no clearer demonstration of the priorities of the current mayor and his council allies from all three parties: ex-mods, ex-progs and dead armadillos alike. Yet I don’t think that the majority of Berkeley voters would agree that putting buildings before people is the right thing to do. 

The next Berkeley election is about a year and a half away. Now, not a year from now, is the time for Berkeleyans (and residents of other East Bay cities) to be seeking out and persuading people to run for office who are genuinely committed to acting in the public interest. In the last Berkeley election councilmembers Spring and Worthington spearheaded the ill-fated draft effort. They continue to speak consistently on behalf of all citizens—homeowners, renters and homeless—as well as for protection of Berkeley’s environment, both built and natural. Berkeley knows who they are and what they stand for. This time one of them should be talked into running.