Proposed Level of Community Benefits for Large-Scale Downtown Buildings

The Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club is concerned that the significant community benefits to be provided by developers of large developments in the downtown, as proposed by Mayor Bates and Councilmember Capitelli for consideration at the Council’s May 26 meeting, are inadequate and require unacceptable tradeoffs between needed labor practices and affordable housing.

We appreciate the efforts of the council to allow community input into setting a City standard for significant community benefits, rather than allowing developers to offer these on a case-by-case basis.

However, we believe that a pro forma economic analysis should be performed for each proposed large project that exceeds usual heights. Each project will impact the community differently and each will garner different amounts of profit from the City-granted planning permission to build above current height limits. For example, the project at Harold Way will impact valuable cultural resources; this impact should be mitigated before application of the community benefits formula. The economic analysis accompanying the Downtown Plan indicates that a project at the corner of Shattuck and Allston (across the street from the proposed Harold Way project) could feasibly support $33,000 in community benefits per unit – nearly $10 million -- in addition to 20% affordable housing. 

We are mindful of the possible administrative burden placed on the City by requiring site-specific analysis, but we do not believe the burden to be excessive given the number of potential projects (three) and the sizable benefit to be realized by undertaking such an analysis. Santa Monica has completed 25 site-specific pro formas in the last few years. The City of Berkeley required a pro forma analysis for the recently approved and much smaller Stonefire project (1974 University Avenue) and found that a return on equity to the project developer of slightly over 6% was reasonable and provided sufficient incentive for project construction. 

WDRC asks that the Council: 

• Require project developers to mitigate the loss of benefits already generated by each locale before applying the community benefit amount. The amount provided should represent both mitigation of existing site benefits and new community benefits above those mitigations.
• Wait until the final affordable housing nexus study is complete before approving the community benefits amount, as this will likely affect the total value of benefits.
• Not, as called for in the proposal, discount the community benefits dollar amount to be provided in exchange for a project labor agreement with local hire and training requirements. Instead require these provisions in addition to monetary amounts. This should be a basic standard for all of our large projects downtown.
• Require these projects to comply with standards that will be in place when the project is completed, in particular the state net zero energy requirements that will be in place in 2020.
• Ensure that benefits are binding, enforceable, and transferred to subsequent site owners by including community benefits in conditions of project approval and any regulatory agreements.

Cities around the Bay Area desperately need money for affordable housing and there is a potential source of funding that is right in front of them. Rents in the San Francisco Bay Area are among the highest in the country and are likely to keep going up for the foreseeable future, creating an affordability crisis for tenants. The only way off the treadmill is to build or buy housing that will be owned by non-profit organizations, land trusts and limited-equity cooperatives. And that takes money, a lot of money. So let’s tax the rising rents that increase the need for affordable housing in the first place.  

Increase the Business Tax on the Gross Receipts from Residential Rental Property 

It can be done in any city in the Bay Area. San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and many other cities have business taxes that are a percentage of gross receipts, which are all earnings before expenses. The tax on gross receipts from residential rental property can be increased by a vote of the people with a simple majority, 50 percent plus one. The tax measure could include a committee made up of people with expertise in developing affordable housing and in homelessness prevention programs to advise the City on how to spend the money, just as Berkeley did in setting up a committee of health professionals to accompany its “soda tax”. Alternatively, a corresponding ballot measure could allocate the same dollar amount raised by the new tax to go from the General Fund to affordable housing. That way we can be pretty sure the money will go for its intended purposes without making the tax increase a “special tax” requiring a two-thirds vote.  

San Francisco has over 200,000 rental units whose tenants pay $4 billion a year in rent. An increase in the gross receipts tax of a modest 2%, even with exemptions for small landlords, would bring in $60 million a year that could be invested in creating permanently affordable non-profit housing. Berkeley has nearly 30,000 rental units whose tenants pay $400 million a year in rent. Even with generous exemptions, an increase in the current 1% gross receipts tax to 3% would bring in $6 million annually for the City’s housing trust fund. That would cost the landlords $30 per unit per month, far less than the last rent increase the landlord imposed after their previous tenant moved out.  

The Tax Will Be Paid from Excess Profits, Not Passed on to Tenants  

The tax would not be passed on to tenants. In San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and East Palo Alto rent controls limit rent increases and would not allow the tax to be passed along to current tenants. Nor would the tax be added on when a new tenant moves in or added to the rent of current tenants in the newer apartment buildings that are exempt from rent regulation. The owners already raise the rent as high as the market will bear whenever they have the chance. Landlords might claim they will raise the rent if the tax passes, but the reality is that they will raise the rent just as much with no tax.  

Recapture the Value We Create As a Community 

Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, the classic work that is the foundation of market economics, recognized that “the rent of houses” has two parts. First, there is the “building rent”, which is the minimum amount actually necessary to profitably operate and maintain the building. The amount over the necessary minimum is the “ground rent” which is paid for the value of the location. This unearned income in “ground rent”, he pointed out, can very appropriately be taxed for the benefit of the community that created the value of that location. 

Landlords get to charge us an admission fee for the privilege of living here in the Bay Area, over and above the part of the rent actually needed to profitably operate and maintain the buildings we live in. They get to turn the value we all have created into their own private profit.  

The residents of the Bay Area, tenants and homeowners alike, have made this a desirable place to live. We created a diverse, open and creative culture supported by transit systems, schools and universities, parks, support for the arts, and so much more. And this made the area attractive to entrepreneurs and businesses whose workers want that creative culture, quality services and natural beauty.  

Homeowners’ contributions to the Bay Area help raise their property values. Tenants’ contributions to the Bay Area help raise their rents. They raise their landlords’ property values. This inequity results in a massive transfer of wealth, taking hundreds of millions of dollars of income away from people who do not own real estate and giving it to those who do own real estate. Nothing could be fairer than to recapture some of this unearned, windfall profit and return it to the community through a windfall profits tax on the gross receipts of the landlords who are raising our rents. 

---

This article originally appeared on people.power.media.org.

Two upcoming free forums will examine recent development trends and projects on San Pablo Avenue.  

The first meeting will be a neighbor led discussion on Saturday May 16 from 3-5 pm in the community room of the West Berkeley Library at 1125 University Avenue.  

Residents concerned about zoning in the R-1A (west of San Pablo Avenue to 6th Street) and CW (San Pablo Avenue, lower University, 4th Street) are invited to attend. Neighborhood activist Ed Herzog will lead the discussion about allowances in the residential zone R-1A, especially the size of second units, and mixed use developments on San Pablo Avenue, focusing on 1500 San Pablo.  

The meeting is free of charge. It would be helpful if attendees would read the pertinent zoning chapters in the municipal code and zoning ordinance before coming to the meeting. R-1A is chapter 23D.20 and CW is chapter 23E.64. 

Subjects to be discussed will include parking, traffic, sunlight and views, and open space considerations. 

A second forum on San Pablo Avenue development and impacts on the neighborhoods, hosted by the Berkeley Neighborhoods Council, is scheduled for Tuesday May 19 at Finn Hall on 1819 Tenth Street between Delaware and Hearst between 6:30 and 9:15 pm. This meeting will focus on land use policies as well as specifics of zoning. 

Speakers include Carol Johnson, Land Use Planning Manager from the City of Berkeley, who will discuss the Priority Development Areas as defined by ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) and how they are implemented. Patrick Sheahan, an architect, resident of West Berkeley, and former Planning Commissioner, will cover how affordable housing mitigations and the state density bonus affect the shape of a building. 

Kate Stepanski will raise environmental concerns such as creeks, the water supply during our current and future droughts, traffic, and air quality. Ed Herzog will discuss neighborhood options in determining mitigations and will summarize the input from the community meeting on Saturday. 

At least six large mixed use projects have been completed in the last ten years on San Pablo Avenue and several more on in the works including 1500, 2720, 2747, 2748 and 1200 Ashby. 

Please note that the meeting will be held at Finn Hall on Tenth Street, NOT at the Chestnut Street hall of similar name. Attendees are asked to respect the peace and quiet of the surrounding residential neighborhood, in arrival and departure.

The De Blasio Express blew into Berkeley yesterday, and if I were inclined to mix metaphors I might opine that the newly-minted Mayor of New York is gunning for bigger game. If you believe the New York Times, some of his constituents think so too. And they’re not too happy about it: Mayor de Blasio’s Days on the Road Fuel Criticism at Home.

He appeared at a one-hour show-and-tell at Berkeley’s Freight and Salvage Coffee House, hastily organized but lightly publicized by U.C.’s Goldman School of Public Policy. On the dais with him as interlocutor was Prof. and Old Pol Robert Reich, who probably spearheaded the performance. It provided a great photo-op for filmmaker Jake Kornbluth (brother of Josh, who was there too.) Attendees were warned that they’d be captured on the video cameras that were around the room. Jake produced the film Inequality for All, which starred Reich, and it’s not unreasonable to assume that yesterday’s footage was being shot for the sequel. In fact, it’s not unreasonable to assume that the whole event was staged for the next film—and there’s nothing wrong with that, is there?

Perhaps because of the last minute nature of the program, or because it took place in the middle of the work day and during U.C.’s exam period, the house was only about half full. (The opera I attended there recently filled all the seats.) Most of the younger audience members seemed to be from the Goldman School—two of them at the door held big buckets seeking donations for their institution (which seemed tacky to me—the Goldmans were still pretty well off last time I checked.) There was only one African-American in the audience, who looked like a grad student.

The first half hour was devoted to articulating what seems to be a new PR push by self-identified Progressives (disclosure: I’m one) to get their message out in simple form. Reich is good at this, generating a seemingly endless stream of easily digested sound bytes for all media. The bullet points in de Blasio’s presentation were really no more than what we called in my youth (which preceded his youth) the Standard Liberal Position, but de Blasio embraced the Progressive brand for his ideas with enthusiasm, and Progressive does sound more au courant than plain old Liberal. However more than once he invoked the sainted images of Roosevelt and Fiorello La Guardia, plain old Liberals both and one even a Republican. 

The overall theme of their half-hour Q&A was Ending Inequality, cleverly illustrated by the side by side pose of Reich (well over four feet tall) next to the mayor (huge). Top hits: minimum wage, tax the rich, campaign financing, pre-kindergarten for kids. Missing from the script, however, was housing development. 

This is no surprise, because it seems to be a big bone of contention on de Blasio’s home turf at the moment, as it is almost everywhere in the Progressive universe, including the San Francisco Bay Area and even Berkeley. It’s universally agreed that there’s a shortage of affordable housing in some areas, especially for those with very low or no income. What’s not agreed is what to do about it. 

One school of thought says that the best way to ensure a steady supply of affordable housing is to encourage the current flight-capital-fueled luxury building boom now going on in desirable metropolitan areas. The extreme Ayn Randish version of this theory seems to hold that some sort of trickle-down effect will result in expensive condos opening up spaces elsewhere for cheaper rents for the rest of us—that one’s so silly that Progressives seldom bother to argue with it. 

But the Lite version of that agenda is to require would-be apartment developers to include affordable units on all building sites, and that’s the one de Blasio articulated in Berkeley yesterday. 

Mind you, he didn’t bring it up himself in his first half-hour presentation. In fact, he didn’t mention housing at all until pushed. 

This might be because housing development seems to be a sticky wicket on his home turf at the moment, according to another recent story in the New York Times (De Blasio’s Housing Push Spurs Anxiety Among Those It’s Meant to Help). No wonder he wanted to get out of town. 

The second half-hour was supposed to be devoted to questions from the audience, sure to add visual interest to the film Kornbluth was shooting. But Berkeley being Berkeley, the first couple of audience questions were pointed at the housing shortage, the very topic de Blasio had avoided in the first half. 

The first questioner was an older San Franciscan, now priced out of her home town by tech boomers. The mayor said that his policy was to require at least 30% “affordable” housing in every new development, and if the developer balked, too bad, no permit. He did not say that he supported the alternative concept of allowing market-rate and high-end developers to pay in-lieu fees into an affordable housing building fund, a theory now promoted by some for Berkeley, San Francisco and elsewhere in the pricey Bay Area. This would group lower-income residents into purpose-built housing projects, a strategy which has had some problems in the past as public housing turned into crime-plagued ghettos. 

The next audience members Reich called on, both student-aged, had similar queries, and de Blasio amplified that he supports allowing taller, denser buildings so that affordable units can be included. This caused three or four of the Goldman students to clap for what has lately become the Standard Liberal Progressive Position. 

But after two successive housing questions, Reich clearly got nervous about what the NYT piece had outed as a sensitive area for the mayor, and he interposed two or three of his own questions about safer topics, like de Blasio’s much-praised (in Berkeley) end to New York’s stop-and-frisk policing and his push for pre-kindergarten education. 

In all, Reich asked about half of the “audience period” questions during the second half hour. For the last question he called on a front row spectator whom I recognized as a Major Donor to progressive causes, who went backstage with the speakers at the end. 

Of course I had my hand up to ask a touchier and more complicated question about development, and I hadn’t even yet seen the NYT article about de Blasio’s problems with the topic at home. And of course, since I’m another old woman, Reich didn’t call on me—students provide more appealing visuals for the video-in-progress that he and Jake Kornbluth seem to be working on. 

My question would have been about the relative merits of on-site inclusionary requirements vs. in-lieu payments by developers as a way of providing affordable housing. I also wanted to ask about displacement of low-income tenants to make room for fancy condo buildings aimed at international oligarchs, a big problem not only in New York and the San Francisco Bay Area, but in other gentrifying in-demand world cities like London and Shanghai. 

Development issues like these are the biggest source of potential disagreements among those now vying for the newly sexy Progressive brand. In Berkeley the dispute is particularly bitter, since the favored in-lieu payment currently supported by the majority of the City Council members is a piddling $20,000 per unit, which would not even come close to providing enough low-income units to meet Berkeley’s quota in allaying the Bay Area housing shortage, where very modest single-family houses now hover around a million dollars. Thirty percent inclusionary on-site housing here? Dream on! 

Berkeley’s aging mayor and his faux-Prog allies have agreed to allow construction of at least seven new high-rises, all much bigger than anything now visible on the city’s skyline. The first one submitted to the city’s planning process, if approved, could result in partial demolition of historic buildings, including the ten-screen movie house which is now an anchor for downtown Berkeley small businesses, as well as partially blocking the view of the Golden Gate from the University of California campus, which has some students up in arms. 

I tried to buttonhole de Blasio about such topics after his one-hour cameo ended—he chatted with a few students (filmed, of course) on his way to his car. But my access was blocked by about six big guys in suits with electronics in their ears, who formed a ring around him as they moved toward an enormous black SUV. Someone told me it was a Chevrolet Suburban, an alien vehicle here in Prius-land. He’s an enormous guy, so maybe he needs the space (though the enormous guy I usually travel with manages to fold himself into a Prius.) Certainly if he’s going to continue to travel with this entourage he’ll be needing a big car, no matter how odd it looks in the Bay. 

The interesting question, as is always the case with up-and-coming politicians and high-tech start-ups both, is scale-up. Will de Blasio’s big-city message play down in Peoria or Chico? 

And conversely, how will it hit the home folks? In the Times, they asked it thus: 

“After 16 months as mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio seems determined to escape the confines of his day job and to prompt a national liberal movement — even as he leaves himself open to criticism that he is not making problems at home a priority.” 

If a former New York senator were not the leading candidate for president, you might wonder if de Blasio wasn’t angling to get out of town as V-P, but Rest of World probably can’t take that much New York on the ticket. In the best of all possible outcomes, of course, there are always those cabinet jobs, probably more fun than the tedious task of trying keep Gotham working, if Hillary makes it. 

And meanwhile, trendy Berkeley builds, builds, builds those luxury condos to swell the coffers of the 1%, while low-wage workers have to move out of town to find a place to live. Our elderly incumbents aren't going anywhere--they like the status quo just fine. Someone told me they noticed the mayor's most reliable knee-jerk faux-Prog councilwoman exiting the coffee-house when de Blasio started talking about his housing policies. 

 

 

 

Council Action Items  

35. Significant Community Benefits from Five Tall Downtown Buildings
    From: Mayor Bates and Councilmember Capitelli
    Recommendation: Request the City Manager to draft a Council resolution establishing a system for Downtown building projects over 75 feet to provide significant community benefits. The projects would be assessed a fee of $100 per square foot for the residential portion of the building between 76 and 120 feet, and $150 per square foot for the residential portion above 120 feet. A Project Labor Agreement (PLA) would be required. It would include local hiring and training components. The PLA would provide a credit, equal to 5 percent of the project construction costs, which would be deducted from the fee. In addition, the fee could be further reduced by voluntary on-site benefits for arts and culture, which must be approved by the City Council. The remainder would be paid into a City fund to be used for affordable housing and arts and culture benefits.
    Financial Implications: See report
    Contact: Tom Bates, Mayor, 981-7100

Don't 'Sanitize' How Our Government Created Ghettos

 

 

 

Kamau Bell on This American Life 

At the Zoning Adjustment Board meeting last night, attendees were mightily amused to discover that the "Authorized Personnel Only" sign which formerly graced the door of the private offices behind the dais where the Berkeley City Council holds court had been removed. Is it possible this had something to do with the fact that developer Joseph Penner's front man Mark Rhoades, a former City employee, was photographed at the last council meeting talking to a councilmember in front of said door and seen going behind it a couple of times? Are lobbyists now authorized to go into the back room?

The false promise of regional governance, by Zelda Bronstein 

Initials

"PDA." Remember those initials. They may sound innocent enough, but they can be deadly – not necessarily to people, but to a style of life, and to the culture of a community itself.

PDA stands for “Priority Development Area.” Think of bulldozers, clouds of dust from crushed old concrete, the endless beep of trucks backing up. PDA stands for “target area”, for tearing down what is there, and replacing it with something else.

And as the dust collects everywhere, think of the initials "ABAG." ABAG stands for the Association of Bay Area Governments, and it is responsible for planning the PDAs for bay area cities, and indeed, for inventing the term.

They will tell us that "PDA" stands for progress, new buildings along major avenues, downtown renovation, new housing, and especially new affordable housing. And lord knows, we need affordable housing. But suppose the "progress" is only for financiers, the new buildings simply for construction corporate profit, and new housing being only “market rate” housing (which is un-affordable for most of us these days). Hint: don’t bet against this supposition.

I have spoken about the PDAs planned for Berkeley in a previous article. But here is some new information. 

Did you know that the city cannot tell developers to build affordable housing? It can only give permits to developers to build what they want. And developers and landlords make more money from high rent, market rate apartments and condos. If the city wants affordable housing for low income people. it has to finance it itself. In 2009, the courts decided that if a city required affordable rent units in a high rent building, it would have to compensate the landlord for the difference. (It's called the “Palmer case.”) So "affordable" had to be made voluntary. The city then required developers to pay a “mitigation fee” if they didn’t want to put affordable units in their buildings. That “mitigation fee” would go into a “Housing Trust Fund” with which the city could finance affordable housing. 

Catch-22. The Housing Trust Fund doesn’t have enough money to finance affordable housing because the developers that promised to pay into it have broken that promise. And the city has no means of enforcement. It has to sue in court for each case individually. 

In each PDA in Berkeley (there are four: San Pablo Ave., University Ave., Adeline St., and South Shattuck Ave.), the demolition clearing space for new construction will destroy affordable housing units which won’t be replaced. 

Let me say this another way. Though the "Plan" calls for 33% affordable housing, and city rules call for 10% if the buildings exceed zoning regulation limits (which they probably will), only 6% of the new housing will be affordable. And that will not replace the affordable housing units destroyed in the process. 

"PDA" stands for “we lose.” 

We will also lose the small shops, the cafes and restaurants that people of the neighborhood can afford, and like to hang out in. We will lose the groceries and antique shops and second hand stores where we can buy things the productive economy doesn’t make any more. Grocery Outlet will be closed after December, and replaced by another high rise apartment building. That site, and Spenger’s, and the lot at the corner of 5^th and University, are all in the “University Ave. PDA.” 

Initiations

ABAG is not an elected body, and not representative, but its decisions are (in an extra-legal and extra-moral sense) binding. That is, it has political power over us. 

It is a level of governance that lurks between the state government in Sacramento and Bay Area cities and counties. It is composed of people appointed by city and county councils, but controlled by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the governor. It makes plans for the cities and counties of the Bay Area. It has been working on “Plan Bay Area” for 10 years. 

As pointed out previously, “Plan Bay Area” assigns (the official word is “allots”) a certain number of new housing units to each city in the area (of which a certain percentage are to be affordable). Berkeley’s "allotment" is 2959 new units by 2022. Almost 3000 new high rent units? Though ABAG’s plan states that there should be 974 units for low and very low income people, the city is only proposing to build 196 units for them. It looks like the city wants the rest (those displaced by demolition and not re-housed) to move out of town. Some representation!! 

The city, however, is under the gun. When ABAG comes along with its plan, the city has to say "yes" to it, otherwise it faces the possibility the state may cut off funds and grants the city depends on for social programs and services – stuff like education, homeless services, and infrastructure maintenance. In other words, ABAG gets its way through blackmail. 

But what about Berkeley’s representatives in ABAG’s councils? There have been appointed representatives – Bates, Capitelli, and Worthington have all been in that position at one time or another. And none have called any city wide meetings or townhalls for the purpose of report-back, and for us to discuss what ABAG is doing. We have been kept in the dark. There have been no reports to the people about the activities and plans of ABAG. Nor have these city "representatives" asked us how they might better represent the people in ABAG. The relation between ABAG and the city council seems to be just another "back-room" affair. 

Inventions

Why does ABAG come up with these plans? We already know the reasons. They are political, though ABAG says (in its webpage) that it is to prepare for an expected population increase. 

“Computer projections” have been used, based on past experience, to come up with numbers. But Berkeley's population has been fairly constant over the last two decades (not counting students). And overall Bay Area growth has been low. Aside from the fact that a "projection model" is a form of speculation, why is ABAG telling us we must prepare for growth? 

The answer is that this growth is part of their plan. ABAG can project growth because ABAG will be responsible for it. It knows there will be a need for new housing because it will be creating that need. And it will do so in the name of environmentalism and transportation. 

It sets two projects for itself: (1) to prevent suburban sprawl, and (2) to reduce the area’s “carbon footprint” by reducing commuter traffic and daily expressway use. Ironically, no increase in public transportation is planned. 

Since the suburbs and their sprawl already exist, a plan can accomplish both tasks only by moving those in the suburbs into the cities. That will reduce the suburbs and commuter traffic at the same time. 

But who lives in the suburbs? They are business and high tech people, corporate executives and technocrats who moved out of town during the 60s and 70s to escape the social justice movements (“white flight”). They grew in wealth with the growth of the financial industry, the high tech industry, the Information industry, the business schools as thinktanks, and transportation and shipping industries. Those industries grew in this area because the Bay Area is one of the "capitol" cities of the Pacific Rim economy. As that economy grows, and especially if the Trans-Pacific Partnership passes (which will destroy local democracy by giving investment priority over local law), these people will be needed closer to their desks. So ABAG has instructed the cities of the bay area to build more housing, to relieve these commuters of the necessity to spend 3 hours a day in highway traffic jams. 

They are not needed closer to their desks because of global warming. They are needed there because of economic dominance, global control. Our communities will pay the price for corporate control of other societies through that "trans-pacific partnership." 

But the development of high rent housing will not reduce the suburbs or highway traffic. As low rent housing is demolished to make room for high rent housing, the people displaced will have to move out of town, and become the commuters, replacing the executives and technocrats on the highways. Environmentally, nothing will change. 

Origins

There is historical irony here. ABAG was originally founded by the social justice movements of the cities during the early 1970s. Back then, a new culture of democracy had formed that stood against a war of aggression, that tore down the walls of racial segregation, that strove to eliminate second-class citizenship for women, indigenous people, and workers. The telephone LifeLine system, district elections in cities, a cessation of the death penalty in California, and an attention to environmental issues, to affirmative action, to public art, day care, and job training, were some of its successes. 

The movements even won seats on city and county councils. And from that vantage point, new representatives sought to coordinate, across city lines, their common purposes of curbing regional pollution, fostering social equality and justice, and giving people a real voice in political affairs. ABAG emerged as a means for such coordination. Then, it got taken away and given to financial and corporate interests. 

The move ABAG’s original organizers made that sealed its fate was to dream of public transportation – of free rides around town, jitney buses running on circular routes and major avenues, financed by traffic and parking fines, or fees from the university for infrastructural services. The state stepped in and said, “you can’t talk about public transportation without us. Transportation is controlled through the state’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). What you are thinking of comes under our jurisdiction.” 

The MTC was given control over ABAG. Thus, the functions of ABAG were shifted from the people to the state. Formerly responsible to an electorate, as a conduit of power and interest from the bottom up, ABAG became a state agency responsible to financial interest from the top down. 

The state didn’t take over ABAG because of the nature of ABAG. It took over ABAG because of the nature of corporations. 

Though it still presents itself as a "coordinating" body, it now fosters a structural disconnect between the people and the government, a structure based on blackmail for promoting and imposing development strategies on the people for corporate interests. 

****** 

The "PDA" and the political problems (disconnects) that it represents will be a major issue of discussion at the West Berkeley Forum on May 19. That Forum will be held at the Finnish Hall, 1819 10^th St., in Berkeley, from 6:30 to 9:15.

According to City of Berkeley Housing Elements (past, current and proposed), from 2001-2006 Berkeley provided 166% of its regional housing unit needs (RHNA) for above median income housing (120% of median income +) or 757 units for its 455 requirement. That left us 302 units ahead of our fair share for that time period. The Housing Element 2007-2014 saw Berkeley's RHNA grow to 1130 above median units with 1005 units of high end housing already under Permit leaving a 'deficit' of 125 units but, since high end units were already ahead by 302 units, Berkeley had exceeded its requirements for above median income units by 177 units when the latest Housing Element was drafted in early 2014. 

In the same period, from 2001-2006 Berkeley provided just 483 of its 814 share of median income and below units, less than 60% of its Regional Fair Share, or a deficit of 331 units for the first 5 years of the millenium. Berkeley's RHNA for median incomes and below jumped to 1301 units for the years 2007-2014, but they provided only 185 units, not even making up the deficit from the earlier years. So while the City is fully caught up and already ahead on its higher income units, we haven't even made our quota for moderate or lower income units for 2006 yet. This makes the big push to build block after block of high rent homes and apartments unfathomable.  

Berkeley's RHNA for 2014-2022, according to ABAG, will be 1,401 units for high income (minus 177 units already surplus, or 1224 units total). The City's RHNA for moderate and lower will be 1558, plus 1301 from 2007-2014, plus 146 from 2001-2006 for a grand total of 3005 units required for those making $89,000/yr or less. In its proposed Housing Element for 2014-2022, the City has identified sites with capacity for only 2,461 units, not even enough to bring just the lower rent housing requirements up to date. Once those sites are filled, there is no plan for more, and once again it is the less fortunate that suffer. With the majority of units in the historically lower income West and South Berkeley being built with high rent units and with the concurrent loss of affordable local services, the gentrification of Berkeley will be nearly complete. Once these sites are built up, the only place to build new homeless shelters and SROs will be up in the hills, and then the City will find out just what NIMBY, and the gap between the haves and have nots, is really all about.  

We need a moratorium on the construction of higher rent units, at least until the City can craft a legally binding and more equitable inclusionary ordinance that makes those who profit most also contribute the most. This is Berkeley, home to many great minds that claim to be progressive but, like most places, those who suffer the most are those who struggle to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table in a climate of gentrification. Even in this day and age, they don't all have computers and wi-fi capable of downloading and storing all of the City's constantly changing Plans and Codes, or even City Council Agendas. Many work more than one job and can't afford to lobby those that are supposed to represent them. The Housing Trust Fund with 'non-profit' Project Based Section 8 is not a solution. Tenants of self-certifying non-profits stand to lose their home and their subsidies if they complain, while the non-profit landlord can continue to collect the subsidy for an additional 2 months after the eviction of a "troublemaker" who complains about lack of heat or hot water. Turnover is both profitable to the landlord and chilling to the tenant. Problems found in inspections can go without attention for years, when tenants have nowhere to turn for help except the landlord The City is on a fast track to destroy any remaining diversity left outside of Campus. A moratorium should start immediately, so the City can catch up with its lower income RHNA for 2006-present before starting on the higher income unit requirements of 2017.

With prosecutions of whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou and others, Federal prosecutors have charged more public servants for leaking classified information to journalists than all previous administrations. However, leaking classified information to the Press to advance self-serving political agendas is fairly common.

It can be argued that many whistleblowers seem to have been motivated by genuine concerns of the unlawful actions of our government such as spying on its citizens and torture. The sinister activities of the National Security Agency and the abuses of the Patriot Act would not have been possible without the courageous revelations made by Snowden. 

Contrast these harsh prosecutions of low-level whistleblowers with the light sentence of General Petraeus who gave his biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell, access to notes containing highly classified information. He avoided jail time in exchange for a guilty plea of mishandling classified information. He has retained his position as a partner in a New York private equity firm and a consultant to the White House. The wide disparity in sentencing smacks of an unhealthy double standard. Reporters must have free, unimpeded access to their sources for a healthy democracy. If only whistleblowers could have pierced through the bogus official claims of Saddam’s WMD’s we could have avoided the Iraq debacle and the birth of ISIS, an opinion vigorously endorsed by President Obama.

All of us know from our political experience that the maldistribution of economic resources often coincides with the maldistribution of power. But it may be surprising to realize that this principle even applies to the vaccination of school age children. 

The California State Legislature is currently considering a bill to mandate vaccinations for children in public schools. There is considerable disagreement about this bill. Many parents believe that vaccine decisions should be made by the family. Others are persuaded that mandatory vaccination is necessary because it would save lives and minimize damage to the young. 

But no matter what our differences are, there is one very important issue that we all agree on --- that the Pharmaceuticals must be very careful and responsible to assure a safe product. However, the conduct of the drug companies often suggest that they are more concerned about protecting their own private interests regardless of the impact on the public. Unfortunately, the federal legislation that the industry lobbied for and achieved from Congress and President Reagan in 1986 is very worrisome. That year Congress approved and the President signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which shields the pharmaceutical manufacturers from libel suits. The Supreme Court in 2011 upheld that decision. Although using high sounding language, this legislation has deprived families of a very important source of leverage. 

Instead of allowing law suits against the pharmaceuticals, the legislation includes a no fault provision supported by a small tax on vaccines."No fault" guarantees that blaming corporations in a judicial proceeding is not legally admissible. But families who make a persuasive case can obtain a relatively modest settlement. Since no fault is legally assumed, the compensation is relatively small even if a family is successful. There is absolutely no adverse financial impact on the pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, two out of every three families who apply for compensation have their claims rejected. 

When the law was passed, Congress communicated to the Pharmaceutical industry how important it is to maintain high standards. But Congress failed to enact measures that would hold these companies accountable. Remember, Reagan ushered in a new era of deregulation. So the industry pretty much does what it wants with impunity The problem is that the lack of effective regulations is just a euphemism for no standards. So as things now stand, children and their families assume the entire risk. The pharmaceuticals assume none at all. Apparently, advocates for protecting the public could not overcome the combined power of government and the corporate sector. In no other major industry is the public deprived of the right to sue for damages caused by a faulty product. 

Although the pharmaceuticals assure us that their priority is to serve the public, many of us have serious doubts about the high minded motives of the industry. In fact, the financial health of the industry may not necessarily be healthy for those who depend on its products.

The tragedy which occurred in Texas at the Muhammad Cartoon drawing event is saddening not only as an American but more so as a Muslim. Prophet Muhammad never taught violence. He led by example and taught his companions to not even raise their voice against anyone who humiliated the Prophet. Patience, a virtue which extremely emphasized in his teachings. The extremists who opened fire at that event are going against the core teachings of the Prophet. Prophet Muhammad taught his followers that everyone is equal. No human being has superiority over the other. Therefore, this tragedy can never be justified especially not under the light of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.

On May 6th, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton held her first two fundraising events in San Francisco. I attended an afternoon event, featuring a confident, positive Clinton. While Hillary didn’t address all of the questions that liberals might have asked, she gave enough specifics to win over most, if not all, Clinton skeptics. 

Clinton used her announcement video to establish populist themes. Clinton observed, “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times. But the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top… Everyday Americans need a champion and I want to be that champion.” The same tone dominated her San Francisco address. 

First in Iowa and again in San Francisco, Clinton talked of four big fights that will focus her campaign rhetoric. 

The first is “building the economy of tomorrow, not yesterday.” Clinton touts the economic progress made under the Obama administration and her plans to build upon it by addressing inequality. Hillary emphasized that a major feature of her economic initiative will be policies that help small businesses. 

The second “fight” is “strengthening families and communities.” Hillary Clinton recently wrote: “You shouldn’t have to be the granddaughter of a president or a secretary of state to receive excellent health care, education, enrichment, and all the support and advantages that will one day lead to a good job and a successful life.” 

An important part of this populist stance is raising the minimum wage. Another is improving the education system. Clinton promised to help those who are burdened with student loan debt – this might be a holding place for an announcement that she supports Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan to refinance student loan debt. 

Clinton includes immigration reform as an important component in her fight to strengthen families and communities. On May 6th, Clinton said 

The American people support comprehensive immigration reform not just because it’s the right thing to do—and it is—but because it will strengthen families, strengthen our economy, and strengthen our country. That’s why we can't wait any longer… for a path to full and equal citizenship.

 

At the San Francisco gathering, Hillary Clinton expressed her full support of The Affordable Care Act and her intention to strengthen Obamacare. 

Clinton’s third “fight” is “fixing our dysfunctional political system and getting unaccountable money out of it even if that takes a constitutional amendment.” Clinton acknowledged that a winning campaign will require raising a huge amount of money – The New York Times reported that she plans to raise $2.5 billion. She observed that’s the reality she has to compete in but that doesn’t mean our political system works. 

Finally, the fourth “fight” is “protecting our country from the threats we see and the ones that are on the horizon.” Hillary mentioned the complexity of the situation in the Middle East and the new form of threat posed by the Islamic State (ISIL). She also mentioned cyber terrorism. 

At the event I attended, Clinton didn’t mention the threat posed by global climate change; however, her campaign manager, John Podesta, has indicated she’ll make “climate change & clean energy” a major concern of her campaign (and package it as a threat to national security). 

Hillary Clinton demonstrated a level of energy and optimism that I hadn’t seen before. Perhaps, as some have observed, she’s buoyed by the weaknesses of the Republican candidates. More likely, she’s decided to run the campaign on her own terms, and doesn’t feel beholden to the legacy of her husband or Barack Obama. 

Writing in The New Republic Brian Beutler observed: 

In America, in 2015, large swaths of people with wildly differing political ideologies… are converging on a series of assumptions they didn’t always share… that the drug war is a moral and practical failure; that three-strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and myriad other aspects of our criminal justice system are flawed, racially biased, and in desperate need of reform; that the loosening of certain financial regulations in recent decades was disastrous; that the Iraq war never should have happened.

Hillary Clinton seems aligned with these sentiments. She’s softened her position on medical marijuana. In April, Clinton spoke of the need for reform of the criminal justice system and an end to “the era of mass incarceration.” She hasn’t come out and said, “the loosening of certain financial regulations was disastrous” but to many observers she seems to be aligning with Senator Elizabeth Warren, (a recent New Yorker article on Warren observed that Clinton and her staff have been consulting with Warren and her staff.) And in her updated memoir Clinton admitted that her support for the Iraq war was a mistake. 

Obviously, anything can happen between now and the November 8, 2016, presidential election. However, based upon first impressions, it looks like Hillary Clinton is on track to become America’s first female President. 

---

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer. He can be reached at bburnett@sonic.net

If you live the life of a dependent person, your destiny is determined by other people. For example, I once knew a man in his forties who lived with his parents. I would have lived with parents if I could, but they wisely kicked me out at twenty-four.  

Living independently can be difficult for many young adults, disabled or not. Hopefully, when we get older we develop more of a knack for it, and ultimately never question the ability. There is no doubt that the responsibilities and the challenges of taking care of oneself, or in some cases taking care of offspring, are harder to face for persons with disabilities, compared to those without a disability.  

Not everyone with a mental illness is capable of taking care of himself or herself. In these instances, parents must decide if they are going to continue allowing the offspring to live at home, or place him or her in a living situation in which there is supervision. Sometimes for the development of someone as an adult human being, he or she may need to be nudged out of the nest.  

Long before I was told I had to leave, I was hard enough to live with that kicking me out was a no-brainer. Also, my parents had their own lives and no longer wanted to live with offspring.  

Once on my own, although my parents continued to help with certain things, I had to fend for myself.  

Housing situations designated specifically for person with mental illness often aren’t good. Group homes offer no privacy, bad food, unnecessary restrictions, harassment and theft of personal items. Apartment complexes for mentally ill people in which one has one's own unit still entail harassment by neighbors, such as someone coming to your door at two in the morning for a cigarette.  

A number of drug dealers are able to make their living by lurking in or near mentally ill apartment complexes--preying on vulnerable people, and in some instances assaulting people who inconvenience them or look at them wrong.  

There is one particular bit of quicksand that a number of mentally ill people fall into. In an attempt to escape problematic housing, a person with mental illness might lease an apartment they can not truly afford. This problem becomes even more complicated when roommates are invited in who are not paying rent. This situation can be disastrous.  

Independence does have its pitfalls. And this is more so when one has a disability that in some way limits one's ability to earn money. In order to live independently, a person with mental illness must learn to be proficient in many of the same skills that mainstream people possess, that mentally ill people are often presumed not to have.  

You have to get along with neighbors, or, if not getting along with them, some type of agreement or status quo needs to be reached. You have to budget your money, and this is much more difficult to do when your money is sharply limited. You have to maintain your household. You have to maintain your vehicle.  

(If you try to live in Central Contra Costa or many other areas and rely on the bus to go places, you are likely a masochist. A trip across town or to the adjacent town on the buses in Central Contra Costa is an all-day project. You can be stuck waiting for a bus for up to an hour, and then at a transfer point, an additional hour. This is assuming the drivers are doing what they are supposed to be doing, and this isn't always so. Furthermore, you could be stuck while you are waiting in either the hot sun or pouring rain. If you have a medical condition, you may not be able to withstand that.)  

Additionally, if you are disabled and living on government benefits of various types, which can include Social Security, Medicaid, and Housing, you must periodically deal with the red tape of these institutions. Albeit you might be spared the necessity of filing income tax returns.  

And finally, you must deal with all of the above while at the same time keeping symptoms of mental illness or another disability under control.  

---

Are you interested in reading more of my writing? If yes, go to my Amazon author page that has my books for sale. These are available in paperback and Kindle formats. I have a science fiction collection, "Revised Short Science Fiction Collection of Jack Bragen" that is a mere dollar and one cent in Kindle format, and that truly ought to be read. And I have a self-help book called, "Instructions for Dealing With Schizophrenia: A Self-Help Manual."

Opens May 15 at the Rialto Cinemas Elmwood (Rated R)

If you loved the movie Forest Gump, you'll adore The 100-Year-Old Man. And, if you've never seen Gump, you'll love this film even more. In any event, prepare to be bowled over by an inventive, original, and picaresque (dare we say "gumpish") screenplay that gives a good Nordic spin to a globe-hopping, time-traveling tale.

Based on a best-selling novel, 100-Year-Old Man, went on to become the top-grossing film in Swedish history thanks, in large measure, to the inspired, wacky genius of director, screenwriter, producer, and actor Felix Herngren.

 

 

Herngren's entertaining 114-minute adaptation chronicles the oddest of odysseys as it follows young Allan Karlsson from childhood to super-seniority. Along the way, Karlsson stumbles through some of the high points—and most of the low points—of the 20^th Century. Robert Gustafsson is the perfect choice to play Karlsson. A wildly popular Swedish TV and film comic, Gustafsson's invented TV characters range from bumbling gardeners to doddering codgers. He's a marvelous changeling. 

As the aged but agile centenarian at the heart of this romp (call him "Floris Grump"?), Gustafsson (marvelously transformed by makeup and body padding) actually does begin the film by exiting a window. But it's not what you would call a leap. It's more like a slow, carefully calculated slither. Nonetheless, it enables him to escape the confines of his nursing home only minutes before an adoring crowd of caretakers and media vultures arrive with a birthday cake topped with 100 candles. 

Perhaps "escape" isn't the right word. While Karlsson takes off on his unpredictable road trip at top speed, his velocity is on par with that of a sleepy (but determined) tortoise. 

Like Gump, Karl is an eternally naïve loner, a sweet but shallow fellow guided by a line of wisdom imparted by his mother. Instead of "Life is like a box of chocolates," Karl's motherly advice is more along the lines of "Don't think too much." Karl accepts whatever life throws at him with deadpan acceptance. This detachment may stem from the fact that Karl's emotional life was cut short in his youth. When his hobby of blowing things up draws the attention of the authorities, young Karl is confined to an asylum where an experimental operation leaves him a eunuch – albeit a very unique eunuch. 

Karl's journey is simultaneously incredible and hysterical—especially, given the fact that Karl never cracks a smile but merely greets each new twist of fate with quite, studious bafflement. And, to be sure, there are many baffling encounters to be had—with Stalin, Generalissimo Franco, Harry Truman, Robert Oppenheimer and even a "Great Escape" fiasco with Albert Einstein's dimwit brother, Herbert. 

The historical flashbacks are movie magic and the "present-day" saga of Karl's escape and subsequent misadventures – with an international crime syndicate on his tail, no less—could be called "nail-biting" if it weren't for the fact that you'll be laughing too hard to focus your teeth anywhere near your fingertips. 

The road trip part of the caper percolates with wry observations and the director populates the film with a cast of memorable characters. (And when it comes to casting actors with extreme body types, Herngren doesn't hesitate to "go Fellini." There's even an elephant named Sonya.) 

Every frame and edit of The 100-Year-Old Man tells you this film was produced by a team that really loves and knows how to make movies. The story is endlessly inventive, the characters are wildly alive, the encounters are memorable, and the scenes are quickly and crisply rendered as the story sweeps viewers through time and across the globe from Sweden to Russia to Spain to New Mexico and beyond. 

The Berkeley Community Chorus & Orchestra (BCCO) will bring Giuseppe Verdi’s dramatic Messa da Requiem to Hertz Hall at UC Berkeley in its spring concert series. 

Under the direction of BCCO Music Director Ming Luke, the 220-singer chorus will present three performances of this choral masterwork on Friday, June 5, at 8 p.m.; Saturday, June 6, at 3:00 p.m.; and Sunday, June 7, at 3:00 p.m. All BCCO concerts are free and open to the public; donations are gratefully accepted. 

The performances will feature four well-known professional soloists: Carrie Hennessey, soprano; Lisa van der Ploeg, mezzo-soprano; Alexander Boyer, tenor; and James Demler, baritone. The performances will also feature a professional orchestra with about 50 musicians. 

This powerful piece is Verdi’s only large-scale work not written for the stage, and it evokes opera in its highly dramatic scope. "Performing the Verdi Requiem is always thrilling,” said Music Director Luke. “One always immediately thinks of the bombastic “Dies irae,” but with a composer with a flair for drama, this Requiem has such a range of colors. We're very much looking forward to performing it at Hertz Hall."  

First performed in Milan in May 1874, the Requiem immediately drew criticism for the operatic style of the music, and courted political controversy as well. According to Eric Choate, BCCO’s assistant conductor, since its inception the Requiem has “sparked fierce debate over whether it is more at home in a liturgical context, as Verdi intended, or if its style and proportions relegate it exclusively to a concert hall.” One critic of the time even denounced the work as “an opera in ecclesiastical robes,” and with some validity, as Verdi’s theatrical sensibilities took it well beyond the traditionally solemn requiem genre to a hugely emotional tour de force. 

Verdi composed his Requiem when Italy was under Austrian rule. A fiercely patriotic Italian with strong political opinions, Verdi shared his fervor for Italian liberty with poet and novelist Allesandro Manzoni, whom Verdi admired tremendously. Manzoni’s work frequently used historical themes with allusions to the contemporary struggle for independence. When Manzoni died in 1873, Verdi was so devastated that he couldn’t bear to attend the funeral. Over the next year, Verdi composed the Requiem in memory of the celebrated Italian author. It premiered a year after Manzoni’s death, in the Church of Saint Mark in Milan. 

The Berkeley Community Chorus & Orchestra is a non-auditioned community chorus dedicated to performing major classical works with orchestral accompaniment, free to the public. In 2016 it will celebrate its fiftieth year of performance. Ming Luke joined BCCO in 2011, becoming only the third music director to lead BCCO since its founding. Widely recognized for his innovative music education programs, Luke has performed more than 120 educational concerts with the Berkeley Symphony, for which he is associate conductor. He frequently conducts for the San Francisco Ballet Orchestra, and has worked with ensembles across the United States, UK, Russia, France, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary and Austria. 

For Further Information: Call BCCO at 510-433-9599, or see http://www.bcco.org