Opinion

Well, it’s Groundhog Day again in Berkeley. Just like in the movie...you wake up in the morning and they’re at it again, doing the same-old same-old…and my, does it get tiresome!

One more time, as the going gets tough, Tom Bates gets going—getting tough on the hapless homeless. As I’ve said too many times in this space, I still have in my garage a sign I swiped off a lawn somewhere that says “Assemblyman Tom Bates Supports Measures N &O”—which were a pair of initiatives cooked up by Bates and his wife the Mayor two decades ago to restrict panhandlers’ right to ask for money on the street. They were duly passed by Berkeley’s not-really-all-that-progressive electorate, but were later—at enormous legal cost to the city—thrown out by a federal judge for violating the First Amendment.

But now Bates is running for office—yet again, still at it even though he’s long past his pull date. So once again his PR apparatus, which operates at public expense out of his City Hall office, has planted single-source stories in several places which all show Bates Getting Tough on Ugly People on the Street.

In case you’re interested in three similar takes on the official version of Bates' new proposal to put an anti-sitting initiative on the November ballot, Doug Oakley’s got a report in the San Jose Mercury News, Lance Knobel has another one on the Berkeleyside site, and there’s one on the Patch site,

Needless to say, no one contacted the Planet about this proposal except several outraged homeless advocates. -more-

An East Coast friend who often visits the Bay Area writes in response to this week's coverage of the mayor's latest anti-sitting campaign:

"Becky, as I get older I become more aware of the need for places to sit down on public streets without arousing suspicions I'm homeless. Not only should we be allowed to sit down -- we should have more benches to sit on. Maybe you can work that idea into an editorial. I guess the idea here is that sitting down on public streets should be perfectly respectable. (Or does the ordinance just prohibit extending your hands as you sit down?)

I expect Berkeley's population is aging.....And how can you have a pedestrian friendly city if people can't sit down if they need to?"

I write urging you to speak against the Civil Sidewalks Ballot Measure

I enclose current reports and articles on the potential costs and consequences facing the Sit/Lie Ordinance which our Berkeley effort is modeling itself after.

2010 ‘sit-lie’ law could cost city thousands to jail repeat offenders

San Francisco's Sit/Lie Law Radically Ineffective, Report

As a Downtown property and business owner (East Bay Media Center 1939 Addison Street) I find the Sit/Lie effort to be both an economic and social travesty only awaiting the pull of an administrative trigger. -more-

“I get very few complaints,” Chanin said. “The officers I’ve met do a good job.” - Berkeley Patch story by Rebecca Rosen Lum cited in the Berkeley Daily Planet.

Those who cite fewer complaints as proof that the Berkeley police are less brutal or corrupt manage to forget the impact state constraints have had on what was once a public and robust complaint system. People who use the current system not only end up without any justice, they become police targets with little recourse when the officers about whom they complained retaliate. -more-

Introduction

At the May 29, 2012 the Berkeley City Council voted to name Ms. Christine Daniel to the permanent position of Berkeley City Manager. In the eyes of many this action was premature and in many ways irresponsible. The position of City Manager is the most powerful one within the City hierarchy. Consequently when this position becomes "open", which is rare, great care should be taken in the selection process. In this case, no care at all was taken and there was no selection process. The following letter addressed to council prior to their vote makes abundantly clear why the nomination should have been postponed. -more-

On Tuesday night's Berkeley City Council agenda, item #38 had a clearly identified title for an initiative being voted on in November.

For the Council's convenience in identifying, issue #38 was titled the "Sunshine" initiative. I find it more than curious that they did not extend the same information, as a courtesy, to the voter in the November ballot title. The language to be included on the ballot has a title that does not refer to "Sunshine" or "Open Government". As we gathered signatures of well over three thousand Berkeley voters, we always had posters and leaflets that said "Sunshine/Open Government". They read them and knew exactly what they were approving when they attached their signatures to the petitions. -more-

At a cost of $52,000, the City of Berkeley commissioned two professional polls that probed for tax-susceptible weak points in the body politic. The results were starkly clear—only one of the potential tax measures explored had majority voter support and none garnered the required two-thirds majority. With the presentation of additional favorable background information, only one target area even had the vaguest potential to reach the two-thirds voter threshold—a measure directed to streets and watershed infrastructure improvements.

For details see http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_City_Council/2012/05May/Item%2042.pdf

Despite these results, the Council once again succumbed to the relentless pools lobby and is now working on: a $30M bond for streets/watershed; a $20M bond to build a warm water pool and make pool improvements at Willard and King; and a $1M parcel tax to pay for ongoing annual pool maintenance. The pools measures, even with enhanced favorable information and no opposing arguments presented (as will happen in an election), according to the pollster experts still fell short of the two-thirds requirement by about 7%. -more-

Those who are concerned about the ill effects of smoking should realize that there are far better ways of discouraging the habit than voting yes on Measure 29, which is a punitive, regressive cigarette tax on the poor. Obviously, middle class smokers won't be deterred by the extra cost. Schools as well as many good willed non-profit organizations could develop effective programs to educate and work with smokers to break this dangerous habit. A positive community approach is always far better than attempting to solve a problem with a punitive, regressive tax. Also, laws should be passed that appreciably limit the kind of advertising that the cigarette companies spend millions of dollars on. Their advertisements are dishonest and misleading. -more-

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

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

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

Harry Brill is just flat-out wrong. Proposition 29 is not regressive – it only affects smokers, and research shows there is no better way to stop kids from taking up smoking and help adults quit. -more-