As of 10:30 p.m. electrical service has been restored to roughly 45,000 PG&E customers in the East Bay who experienced a blackout caused by a squirrel earlier this evening, according to a PG&E spokesman. 

They lost power around 8:03 p.m. in the cities of Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Kensington, Oakland, Richmond and San Pablo, according to PG&E spokesman J.D. Guidi. 

"Looks like it was caused by a squirrel at a substation in El Cerrito," Guidi said. 

Earlier this evening around 5:30 p.m. roughly 12,000 customers in San Jose and Gilroy lost power due to heat-related equipment failure. As of roughly 10 p.m., there were 3,500 customers still without power, Guidi said. 

Another heat-related power outage affected customers in the East Bay, with an estimated 6,000 customers losing their electrical service. Roughly 840 of them are still waiting to have their power turned on, according to Guidi. 

"We had various equipment failures related to heat," Guidi said, explaining that transformers had overloaded due to high temperatures and heavy use. 

Customers affected by heat-related power outages may not see their service restored until morning, Guidi said.  

"We do expect some of these customers to be out into the morning hours, as we do have numerous repairs and replacements to make throughout the evening," Guidi said. 

PG&E has mobilized work crews from some of the less impacted areas to help restore power for customers in the East Bay and South Bay.

Introduction

Three winds of social concern and discontent are sweeping through the streets of Bay Area cities with a force that is beginning to disrupt the flow of political traffic. The strongest of them is the need and demand for affordable housing. Against the prior plans of various city councils for the construction of fancy high-rise high-income towers (and two such towers, 12 and 18 stories tall, are planned for downtown Berkeley), neighborhoods are organizing, and recognizing themselves in a new way. In Oakland, people took over city council to stop such a tower on public land. In SF, there is a call for a moratorium on market rate housing. In Berkeley, neighbors gather in local townhall meetings to figure out means of defending their communities. 

Against what? Housing development? Or is it the fact that massive development has been planned by unelected political bodies, ABAG and the MTC, that will flood these cities with above market rate housing and condos. A year ago, when ABAG and the MTC finalized their “Plan Bay Area” in a convention hall in Oakland, and established the Priority Development Areas (PDA) of San Pablo Ave and Adeline (among other), it was against years of protest, and calls to put the Plan to a popular vote – which were ignored. 

Now movements have organized around the knowledge that if these new buildings go up in downtown, other neighborhoods will be next. And like all floods, this one will wash away something very important. Even in downtown Berkeley, the 18 story tower will meaning closing a ten-screen multiplex movie theater which brings more people to downtown than any other attraction, and thus is crucial to most other businesses in the area (restaurants, bars, cafes, etc.). With diminished custom, these business will fall like dominos. 

Those opposed to the Plan’s development have been called NIMBYs. But they themselves have long been clammoring for development, though for affordable housing instead, as well as justice for the unrich. Is justice a development issue? It is when there is no plan to prevent the coherence and cohesion of community and life-style from being swept into the bay by development that is planned. 

Justice and development

Justice is at the core of the other two winds that are gaining in strength. And as we shall see, they are not politically unrelated, though they might seem to be. The second squall that is brewing is a growing popular response and objection to the petty harassment of the homeless that the city has fostered through new piddling regulations. They may seem innocuous, yet that is precisely their meaning and design. They concern the prohibition of small ignorable details of homeless daily existence, which only serve to expand the noticeability horizon of the police. An officer’s mere attention to someone can be escalated at his will to charges of disobedience, should his target merely hesitate or balk at a command, though the person would otherwise be minding his/her own business. The police now have mantras by which they disguise the fact that they have initiated a gratuitous yet aggressive interaction (such as “stop resisting”). 

Along with this, the city has taken it upon itself to cut budgetary funds for social services and non-profit organizations (particularly in South Berkeley) – organizations that provide benefits for the low income, the impoverished, the homeless, and those in medical and psychological need. It is a move designed to increase destitution and stress, whose ultimate effect will swell the ranks of those inhabiting the streets. Even the poor and the marginalized are showing up in numbers at council meetings to protest, like a wind rattling the windows. 

There is a ghost lurking in the shadows, cloaked in euphemism, and trying to fend off the force of these winds with fancy slogans. Its name is "gentrification." 

It is the mystical project to build upper income housing in the name of the affordable. Though the city has ordinances requiring that affordable units be included in any new buildings that exceed city size and density limits, it allows developers to buy their way out of that by paying a mitigation fee. And so eager has the city been to have high income development that it has lowered that fee, at the behest of the developers, from $28,000 per non-affordable unit in buildings where affordable units are required, to $20,000. And so malleable are the permit conditions the city requires of developers that they have gotten away with not paying the fee. Thus, many good intentions fade away into an unseen spirit world of political expediency. 

Affordable housing

“Affordable housing” means that the rent a family pays is calculated on the basis of the family’s income, and not on the basis of the building’s worth, or the mortgage, or the market. The rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the new downtown buildings will be upwards of $3,000 a month. The concept of "affordable" pertains to those at or below the median income for the county, which is $90,000 a year. HUD defines "affordable" as rent that doesn’t exceed 30% of one’s income. For those at the median, that would be $2,250 a month. Since the median is the "middle," there are as many families earning less than the median as there are earning more. Low income means that which 50% of median income or less. For a family earning $45,000 a year, affordable rent would be $1,125 a month, hardly enough to pay for a small one-bedroom apartment at current rent levels. After taxes (e.g. 15%), which would reduce real income to just over $38,000, that one-bedroom rent would amount to almost 36% of real income. The lower one’s income, the worse these figures get. 

To house people and families affordably will take political will and political action. Only affordable housing will keep this city livable for half its population. In the PDAs, the opposite is the plan. 

Gentrification

Development begins in one of two ways. A developer makes plans with the city, and then buys some land on which to do it. Or the developer buys the land (or buys an option on it), and then talks to city planning, holding its investment as a hole-card (a prior investment the city must protect). In the first case, once word gets around, real estate prices will rise in expectation. In the second case, the developer buys low priced properties, maximizing ultimate profit. Buy low, build, and sell high. 

The areas where real estate prices are low (and the most profit is to be made) are generally low-income neighborhoods – working class communities, communities of color. They become the primary targets, promising highest return. 

Once the word gets out that an area (a PDA) is due for development, however, the disruptions start. Real estate values in the immediate vicinity go up. Speculators come in and buy rental properties, preparing only to sell them at a profit, perhaps evicting all the tenants to prepare for demolition. Among homeowners near the development zone (PDA), competition develops to get the best price from the speculators. As real estate value goes up, so do taxes. The competition to sell increases, and values drop. As more people sell, local residents start to leave the neighborhood. 

As this process proceeds, landlords with commercial space raise their rent to open space for stores that cater to a higher income clientele. Local stores close. These are the businesses that local residents depend on for community participation and consumption within their budget. As stores and restaurants close, the community infrastructure decays. Real estate a block or two distant from the PDA falls in value. People start to sell in order not to lose the equity in their house, and to escape the disruptions of construction. Others end up under water, unable to refinance. Some will face foreclosure, defaulting on mortgage rates that are no longer supported by their own real estate values. 

Thus, the PDA becomes a machine that chews up community, displaces tenants, contorts real estate values (driving some up and others down), all in order to build new upper income housing. And while it promises new affordable housing (in response to popular demand), it destroys already existing low income housing. Insofar as developers can buy their way out of including affordable housing, it is doubtful that what they build will balance or compensate for what is lost. 

In short, new high-rise and high-cost apartments transform the property relations of the community, replacing people of modest means with an elite. Some landowners and landlords get very rich. But many more lose because the infrastructure of their neighborhood has been decimated. 

This is what is called gentrification. It is an extreme form of loss of community to corporate displacement of residents and neighborhoods, a loss of community coherence to corporate control. 

In the case of West Berkeley, manufacturing, which depends on low rent housing that workers can afford, will be hard hit. The area is the site of most non-high-tech employment outside the university (a state institution). Breweries, food processing, and food distribution companies, for instance, make up a sizable portion of its employment profile. The Berkeley Office of Economic Development has suggested that the employment base needs to be expanded. The San Pablo PDA, however, will replace working class people with upper class, and the jobs landscape will suffer. Along with low income housing, jobs too will be lost. 

City budgets and land speculators

Though gentrification may be detrimental to most city residents, it enhances the careers of the political elite. For this reason, against the winds of resistance, the city will foster policies to assist the process, policies designed to move people out of their neighborhoods. It does this through budget cuts and harassment laws. 

 

There are, in every city, a number of non-profits and neighborhood organizations that provide services for the needy – those fallen prey to substance abuse, to homelessness, to varying degrees of impoverishment (requiring rent subsidy or welfare), etc. 

When funding for such services is cut, those dependent on them find themselves deprived of essential means of survival. Many turn to more desperate means. Destitution creates social disruption and crime. Policing becomes the first line of attack (requiring higher appropriations for the police). A burgeoning atmosphere of criminalization provides a rationale for evictions, and for generalized social hostility. Real estate values decline, and speculators move in. A general pressure toward exodus will ensue. Thus, budget cuts for a low income neighborhood lay the foundation for high income development. This is the implicit destiny of South Berkeley, for which such funding has been cut, and which is the target of a PDA. We have seen a similar process occurring in West Oakland. 

Along with this, Berkeley has been passing various nuisance ordinances to permit greater harassment of the homeless by the police. This too will create greater social tension, providing opportunities for developers to purchase properties cheaply. It works because it occurs in the shadows, and plays on people’s patience through an accumulation of isolated incidents. Residents call on the city for security, and the city responds with proposals for development. 

Destitution, homelessness, social chaos, and crime will inevitably lead to community conflict, police control, and an undermining of resident opposition to the onset of gentrification. More people accept their fate and leave the neighborhood. 

If, according to international law and treaty obligation, housing is a human right, then, in these terms, the proposal for massive development and gentrification, such as is contained in Plan Bay Area, promises to become a massive violation of human rights, expelling people from their homes for private interest. Against this, the social movements that defend downtown against high-rise high income buildings and call for affordable housing development, the social movements for humane responsibility toward the homeless, and the social movements seeking to maintain city budget support for the alleviation of poverty, all come together.

Today, the ACLU of Northern California urged the Berkeley City Council and Mayor Tom Bates to reject a slate of anti-homeless laws proposed in March. In a letter signed by Senior Counsel Alan Schlosser, they wrote, “These ordinances are a step backwards.” 

The proposed laws criminalize a host of inoccuous behaviors, including setting property down within three feet of a tree well, or panhandling within ten feet of a parking pay station. Schlosser wrote, “The fact is that these laws will be disproportionately enforced against the poor, the young and the homeless… They will be enforced with the goal of moving ‘undesirable’ people away from downtown shopping areas…” Getting people out of public sight is, “not a constitutionally permissible reason to use the police power of the state…” 

The letter made further reference to projected involvement of the Downtown Berkeley Association’s Ambassador program: “The risk of unconstitutional enforcement is heightened where private security ‘ambassadors’ patrol public streets and are tasked with enforcing such laws…” The DBA’s Ambassadors made headlines in March when one of them was caught on video beating two homeless men. In the past, the DBA’s CEO John Caner has said that he would like to see the Ambassadors have a role in enforcing anti-homeless laws. 

The ACLU reminded City Council that in 2012, “Berkeley voters rejected a proposal to criminalize homelessness and push homeless people out of the downtown areas when a majority disapproved a propsal to criminalize sitting or lying on public sidewalks (Measure S).” 

More than fifty congregations of numerous faiths have signed onto a letter opposing the anti-homeless laws. The Berkeley Food and Housing Project, BOSS, YEAH!, Youth Spirit Artworks, the Homeless Commission, and the Homeless Taskforce have all taken positions against the proposal. Streets Are for Everyone volunteer Bob Offer-Westort said, “The overwhelming moral voice of Berkeley—from the faith community to the ACLU—has taken the right stand. As this support grows, we look forward to making this voice heard at City Council.”

Here's just a quick tip on Fun in Downtown Berkeley tomorrow. First, there's going to be a book festival going on. I won't spoil it by listing all the surprises in store for you, which you can find advertised and written up in the commercial media. The book business is still business, though limping along a bit, and it needs your support, so go downtown and see what's happening, and buy something, please. Second, the Save the Shattuck Cinema fans are planning a demonstration of how tall the extra-tall tower which will be grafted onto the historic Shattuck Hotel site would be if it got built. Suffice it to say it would tower over the various landmarked buildings in its vicinity, including but not limited to the hotel, Berkeley High School and the Berkeley Public Library. If you're already persuaded, you're urged to show up and help out with handing out leaflets and talking to vistors: wear black and show up about 9:30. The event lasts from 10-2, and if you miss it, it will happen again on Tuesday.

Berkeley thinks global – but stays local  

Community activists raise balloons to visualize proposed 18-story building

Berkeley: Activists plan visual protest of downtown proposal

Joseph Young

 

Joseph Young

 

The Berkeley Police Department report “Response to Civil Unrest December 6th and 7th, 2014” identifies a series of bad decisions, system failures, skewed priorities and lack of mission clarity that Berkeley Copwatch feels are numerous enough to justify a call for Chief Michael Meehan to resign. The report will be presented tonight at the South Berkeley Senior Center at 6pm tonight and will begin with public comment. 

Access the report here. 

According to Berkeley Copwatch, “The report states that, ‘The event turned to violence and looting once police blocked the roadway at MLK and Addison St.’ However, this conclusion ignores the fact that a protest which had been peacefully marching along the streets was not only blocked for no reason, but individuals were struck by officer batons for simply walking too close to the officers. When one elderly man was struck and knocked to the ground, the crowd grew angrier. After a couple of projectiles were thrown (one of which was a piece of fabric), officers decided to deploy smoke grenades without issuing a dispersal order or a warning to the crowd. This police provocation set events in motion for the next few days. 

In addition, this report identifies failures of leadership that include an inability to manage mutual aid forces, an inability to effectively distinguish between the need for crowd management and crowd control, an inability to identify a clear mission for local and mutual aid forces and an inability to gather and usefully employ information about what was actually happening in the streets on those nights. 

We must remember that the inability of the leadership to establish an effective command structure capable of assessing a rapidly changing situation and prioritizing incidents exposed many of our citizens to unnecessary violence, caused hundreds of people to be needlessly exposed to CS gas and may have cost one man his life on December 7th when officers took over 20 minutes to respond to a medical emergency even though the protest was not violent and was moving away from where the dying man was. 

A more detailed critique of the BPD report will be available from Copwatch early next week. 

 

Recently a friend commented to me that he believed an unenforceable good law was worse than a bad law. At the time I wasn't sure I entirely agreed with him, but now his point is coming into additional focus. Here in Berkeley we are witnessing a housing crisis of community-changing proportions: escalating rents are displacing many long-term residents as well as creating a market where only the wealthy need apply. Affordable housing units are an asset that Berkeley's officials and planners should be fighting to protect; instead we are seeing Short-Term Rentals (Airbnb and others) proliferating with the City doing little or nothing to regulate and control the collateral damage. Current Berkeley law prohibits rentals of less than 14 days, yet there are over 1000 such rentals listed every day on short-term rental websites.  

Berkeley's City Council will be taking up the issue of short-term rentals at its June 9 meeting. Mayor Bates and Councilmember Droste, to their credit, have introduced a package of regulations and fees on the short-term rental market. Unfortunately, as the proposal is currently fashioned there is very little or no enforceability: it is a complaint driven ordinance. Lax enforcement will ensure poor compliance, as has been shown in San Francisco, where the supervisors have had to revisit an initially lax ordinance. Business licenses, registration fees, and terms and limits of use will not happen unless the City ensures enforceability, i.e., dedicates City staff to ensure compliance. The current 14-day law should be quickly enforced so that property owners know there will be consequences for non-compliance. Residents, including tenants, rights of privacy and safety need to be protected. Compliance must be mandatory, not voluntary.  

Berkeley Tenants Union has long argued the Short-Term Rental market is a continuing and escalating threat to affordable housing in Berkeley, and elsewhere. Unregulated markets are dollar driven, not community driven. The "sharing economy" is based on profit and a disdain for community needs. If money is passing hands it is hardly sharing. 

Any new ordinance needs to be simple and direct in its intent and compliance. To that end Berkeley Tenants Union is supporting a number of amendments offered by Councilmember Arreguin. His modifications add enforceability and clarity to the original proposal. At this critical time for housing in Berkeley existing rental units have to be protected for residents, not made available exclusively to tourists and short-term visitors. 

I don't know why smokers are let off lightly when they smoke in public places like bus stops or near rehab centers where smoking is prohibited. Smokers are doing such harm to the public and themselves if they come and smoke, for example, on the benches at a bus stop where signs say, "No Smoking within 20 feet of Bus Stop."  

Every day at the Russell and Shattuck bus stop in Berkeley I see people sit and smoke all kinds of cigarettes or other substances. I wait at a distance until the smoke clears; as a result I often miss my bus. I am not used to inhaling smoke. The state or city should do whatever they can to stop this nuisance. I 

think people addicted to tobacco should be treated and given help to quit smoking. If they will not, they should be required to pay fines to the city to deter them from smoking in prohibited public places. Inhaling secondhand smoke is injurious to health. Violation of no smoking signs in public places should be treated severely.

There are so many things that are infuriating about the hacking of the Berkeley High yearbook, in which one of the small schools was mocked for training future trash collectors (misspelled by the hacker). One of the most infuriating things was the mockery of people who do difficult and essential work. However, I guess I do hold some stereotypes about trash collectors. They are strong men, often African-American men, who get up before dawn and work long hours at a hard job. They safely and responsibly manage dangerous machinery, narrow streets, and bad weather; they are courteous to impatient drivers, inattentive pedestrians, and rushed homeowners. Probably most of them don’t have education beyond high school, but they were resourceful and energetic enough to take on one of the few relatively good-paying and steady jobs available without a college education. I assume that many of them save their hard-earned money to send their kids to college, and that their children are proud to see a dad who works hard every day.  

In fact, trash collectors should be held up as role models to shatter racist stereotypes of African-American men. So, maybe the whole thing should be turned around as a compliment. And maybe the racist hacker needs to repeat an English class at one of the small schools at Berkeley High in order to improve his or her spelling.

This piece is partly a response to an article by Lindsay Aikman, who describes the plight of her son who will not accept treatment. 

My sympathy goes out to Ms. Aikman. I wholeheartedly agree that there must be a way to get people into treatment who have deteriorated and who will not accept help. 

But is Laura's Law the way to achieve this? I am not so sure. I have read much of the text of AB 1421, and I see some flaws in it, despite not being an attorney and having next to no legal expertise. 

The law calls for teams of "highly trained professionals" to deliver treatment (once someone is in the program) but doesn't specify any professional qualifications for members of these "teams." This leaves the door open for people to be on the teams who are entry level and who may or may not have adequate qualifications to treat persons with acute mental illness. 

This law forces people to undergo a mental health examination. And if they refuse to be examined, they can be considered by a clinician to be in need of services. 

This law doesn't incorporate an adequate mechanism to assure that patients are treated humanely. The only mechanisms provided are an optional appearance in court, and the promise of access to the Public Defender. Laura's Law doesn't provide an adequate system of checks and balances, and it leaves too much up to the discretion of those implementing it. 

If a mental health consumer objects to treatment through Laura's Law, he or she can only fight it if savvy concerning the court system. The law specifies that if the consumer wants legal representation, they may have to pay for this out of their own pocket. 

The laws that existed before Laura's Law went into effect existed because there was a great deal of abuse of mental health consumers at the hands of "professionals." History has shown that when too much discretion and power are given to those in charge of treating mentally ill people, this power and discretion will inevitably be abused. 

At this stage, those in charge of implementing the law are on their best behavior so that people will be convinced it is a good idea, so that the law will be enacted everywhere. A few years from now, when the law is fully implemented, we may once again see the abuses that led to past reforms. 

Counties may like the law because it seems like a more economical way to treat people. However, due to its flaws, I am against it. 

Again, my sympathy goes out to Ms. Aikman and her son. But I believe we can do better than Laura's Law as it currently exists. 

*** 

For those who are interested, please click on this link.

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.  

This is a Very Good Deal. Go for it! 

As the 2016 Republican presidential hopefuls continue to pummel each other, many Americans wonder if there is a GOP candidate who expresses common sense on any key issue. At the moment, the sole GOP presidential candidate who meets this criterion is Kentucky Senator Rand Paul when he speaks about national security. Unfortunately, Paul is also a bigot. 

The most recent Huffington Post summary of Republican Candidate Polls shows a tightly bunched group. The top five are Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (13.3 percent), Florida Senator Marco Rubio (13.1 percent), former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (10.3 percent), retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (9.4 percent), and Rand Paul (9.2 percent). Senator Paul has not been able to move clear of the pack. Perhaps this is due to lack of funding; unlike the other top contenders, he hasn’t been able to attract a billionaire “sugar daddy”. 

Although known as a Libertarian, in 2016 Rand Paul describes himself as a “constitutional conservative.” “I say ‘I’m libertarian-ish,’ which means I have some libertarian impulses.” 

Rand Paul displays these “libertarian-ish” tendencies when he addresses foreign policy and national security. Senator Paul recently blamed his own Party for the decline of Iraq and the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS): "ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately," Paul is at odds with most Republicans as he, “favors less military intervention abroad, wants a dramatic reduction in U.S. money to foreign governments and stands in opposition to the Patriot Act and the U.S. policy behind drone strikes.” 

At the end of May, Senator Paul led the charge against renewing the Patriot Act in the Senate. Recently, when interviewed by John Stewart, Paul said his opposition to mass surveillance is consistent with his Libertarian principles, “fighting for the Bill of Rights.” 

However, when it comes to domestic policy, Rand Paul has dropped most of his libertarian stances (such as ending the Federal Reserve) and, in the competition for the Republican presidential nomination, sounds like a run-of-the-mill conservative. He opposed the bank bailout, the 2009 economic stimulus package, and the bailout of General Motors. Senator Paul opposes Wall Street oversight. He describes himself as a classic “free market” conservative., who believes a corporation is a person. He opposes increasing the minimum wage. His answer to income inequality is changing the income tax system to a flat tax, stating: 

“What the Republicans offer is less tangible than a government check. The promise of equalizing opportunity through free markets, lower taxes, and fewer regulations doesn’t arrive in a mailbox at the first of the month”

 

Rand Paul opposes Obamacare and promises that, if elected, he would repeal it and replace it with ”freedom.” In fact, on most economic issues Senator Paul’s response is “freedom.” 

Senator Paul attempts to paint himself as an environmentalist: “You’ll find I’m a tree hugger, literally . . . I’m a Republican who wants clean air, clean water, and the life-extending miracle of electricity.” Nonetheless, He’s a climate change denier. He believes the science is “not conclusive,” adding he’s “not sure anyone exactly knows why” the climate is changing. 

To say the least, Rand Paul is a mixed bag. But it’s on civil rights that he’s most dangerous. When interviewed by John Stewart, Paul reiterated his support for “religious freedom.” This sounds good but coupled with his support of unbridled property rights it guarantees the right to discriminate. 

During a 2012 CNN interview Rand Paul said: 

There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights… The point is that its not all… about race relations, it’s about controlling property, ultimately.

Paul believes it is illegal to impose racial integration in the private sector and opposes affirmative action. 

 

In addition, Paul is against same-sex marriage and has opposed equal protection for the LGBT community. 

Senator Paul says he’s “fighting for the Bill of Rights” but he’s not fighting for oppressed Americans. He’s a “constitutional conservative” fighting for the rich and powerful, fighting for straight white men. 

---

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

 

 

Many people who have schizophrenia or bipolar sometimes get angry beyond the normal level for a given situation. This anger could be expressed verbally, or, for some people with less insight, may become physical. In my case, I have a history of becoming verbally angry. My tone of voice is enough to cause others to become upset. I have learned to scale back on this.  

For anger, there are a number of coping mechanisms that can be utilized. One of these is to make sure that you are adequately medicated. There are certain medications that especially help with reducing anger, such as Depakote.  

Additionally, mindfulness techniques can be learned that can allow letting go of some of the anger naturally.  

When angry, a lot of damage can be done to relationships. Getting angry in the wrong way, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time, can have repercussions that can affect one's future.  

When you feel anger coming, if possible, you could remove yourself from a situation. If you are stuck in a situation wherein you feel pressure, you could pause, take a deep breath, and "exhale" the anger.  

Anger can be a good thing, or a bad one. If it motivates you to get out of an oppressive situation, then it has a use. If someone has harmed you or is harming you, anger can help with defending yourself.  

Sometimes anger is a natural response to being treated abusively. I am not going to tell you that you should always be sweet and loving--that's not real.  

However, sometimes anger can turn us into bullies. Most bullies have a past of being mistreated and/or have been taught through bad examples that it is okay to hurt people. When and if we find clarity, we know the truth--violence is not okay.  

Those recovering from a past of abuse will inevitably have emotions that must be acknowledged. Anger is one of these. This anger should be experienced and should not be glossed-over with a spiritual or religious philosophy that preaches we should always be sweet and kind.  

Unacknowledged anger can bite you in the butt. If we are angry, we should admit that to ourselves. Expressing anger to someone isn't always practicable, depending on the circumstances and with whom we are dealing.  

Discussing anger is usually a good practice in a therapy session. When angry at the therapist, the therapist ought to be open to hearing that without getting defensive, if the therapist is any good. When the therapist tries to invalidate your feelings by putting you under a microscope, it might be time to try changing therapists.  

I have seen therapists use an analytic technique directed at shutting down an angry mental health consumer. This might be for the sake of the convenience of the therapist. I, personally, have had enough of that sort of thing.  

Anger doesn't have to lead to violence, and it doesn't have to lead to verbal abuse. If anger is acknowledged and dealt with in a constructive manner, it can be a motivating force--closely akin to being determined.

The next Senior Power column (June 18, 2015 Berkeley Daily Planet) will be devoted to an unusual aging in place project being undertaken jointly by several agencies -- the Area Agency on Aging (AAA), Alameda County Public Health, City Slicker Farms and Satellite Affordable Housing (SAHA.) Low-income senior citizen residents in five Berkeley and Oakland Section 8 housing projects will have the opportunity to participate in gardening and nutrition workshops. I will focus on Berkeley’s Lawrence Moore Manor’s grant-enabled group and individual roof gardening and nutrition workshops. 

Novella Carpenter grew up in rural Idaho and Washington State. She majored in biology and English at the University of Washington, and also attended UC, B's Graduate School of Journalism. She is the author of the 2009 memoir, Farm City: The Education of an Urban Farmer, published by Penguin and available in public libraries in book, CD and e-book forms. 

In it, she describes her garden in a run-down neighborhood about a mile from downtown Oakland, California. The Essential Urban Farmer, her how-to guide for urban farmers, co-authored with Willow Rosenthal, was also published by Penguin. She started her farm in the city with a few chickens, then some bees, until she had a full-blown farm.  

In 2011, the City informed her that she would have to close her ghost town farm because she was selling excess produce without a permit. Following an extensive debate that prompted officials' to review of city policies regarding urban farming, she was granted a Conditional Use Permit for her 4,500-square-foot urban residential plot, allowing her to keep more than 40 animals, including ducks, chickens, rabbits, pigs, and goats as well as vegetables and fruit. 

Across the country, the rate of food insecurity -- the academic term for a disruption in the ability to maintain a basic, nutritious diet -- among seniors has more than doubled since 2001, and it is projected to climb even further as the Baby Boom generation gets older.  

While the U.S. economy adds jobs and the financial markets steadily improve, a growing number of seniors are having trouble keeping food on the table. Seniors are going hungry, writes Sarah Varney (Kaiser Health News via CNN Money, May 27, 2015). In 2013, 9.6 million Americans over the age of 60 -- one of every 6 older men and women -- could not reliably buy or access food for at least part of the year. The country was doing a worse-than-in-the past job in trying to end senior hunger in America. The number of seniors who "face the threat of hunger has increased every single year since research began on this.  

Experts on aging have declared that the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) is discriminatory, ageist. (American Association for the Advancement of Science May 29, 2015). One of the main health targets proposed by SDG is to reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases such as cancer, stroke and dementia. The goals for 2016-2030 define premature mortality as deaths occurring among people aged 69 years old or younger.  

The proposed SDG target sends an unambiguous statement to UN member states that health provision for younger groups must be prioritized at the expense of people aged 70 or more, according to the international group of signatories of the letter published in The Lancet. The implication for all countries, the U K included, is that resources allocated to conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease should be diverted from older people in order to comply with this global target. 

xxxx 

CALIFORNIA NEWS 

The average length of physician-patient interaction is just over 10 minutes. (As reported and documented in Compassion & Choices Spring 2015 Magazine.) Only 48% of patients said they were always involved in decisions about their treatment.  

"California physicians end opposition to aid-in-dying bill," by Patrick McGreevy (Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2015). 

"Mishap leaves home-care workers waiting weeks for paychecks," by Chris Megerian (Los Angeles Times, June 2, 2015). 

World ELDER ABUSE Awareness Day is Monday, June 15, 2015 :  

"The growing danger to elderly Americans," by Bob Sullivan (CBS News News, January 28, 2015). 

"How to protect elderly loved ones from financial ruin," by Anne Tergesen (MarketWatch, January 28, 2015). 

"Despite Improvements, Ohio Advocates Say Anti-Elder Abuse Funds Fall Short," by Encarnacion Pyle (New America Media, March 30, 2015). 

"Focus on protecting elderly from fraud and fleecing," by Stacy Burling (Philadelphia Inquirer, May 7, 2015). 

"Reports of elder abuse rising in Sonoma County," by Martin Espinoza (Press Democrat - Santa Rosa, California], May 25, 2015). 

"Elder abuse a 'huge, expensive and lethal' problem for states," by Rita Beamish (Stateline.org via Alaska Dispatch News, May 27, 2015). 

## 

On May 31st, I saw Eliana Lopez in her one-woman play, "What is the Scandal?” (“¿Cuál es el Escándalo”) at the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts in San Francisco. I was impressed with Ms. Lopez's performance. She is a talented, attractive actress who performed with passion with just enough humor. Her experience as a Venezuelan telenovela star showed.  

Her performance did shed light on her own feelings about the domestic violence matter, but with omissions of, and reinterpretations of pertinent facts. But then, we were told before the performance started that this was a work of fiction. Wink! Wink! 

As you may remember, on January 13, 2012, Ross Mirkarimi was charged with domestic violence battery, child endangerment, and dissuading a witness as a result of an altercation he had with Ms. Lopez on New Year's Eve, before he was sworn in as sheriff of San Francisco County. A charge of false imprisonment was later added. Under a plea agreement, Mirkarimi pled guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment. The other charges were dropped. Mirkarimi was sentenced to 3 years probation, 100 hours community service, 52 weeks of domestic violence classes, and required to make a public apology to Ivory Madison who reported the abuse to the police. 

Here are some of my major "quibbles."  

Ivory Madison, Lopez's neighbor, does not fare well in the play. Lopez portrays her as a cloying, obsequious person, who somehow duped her into making the video of what happened on New Year's Eve. In the play, however, Lopez does not mention or contradict what she said on the video. If you recall, she tearfully says Mirkarimi grabbed her while holding up her right arm showing the bruise and stating, "This is the second time this is happening . . ." She also told the same story to Callie Williams, another neighbor.  

Lopez also does not mention Mirkarimi's former girlfriend and television host Christina Flores, who told San Francisco Police that Mirkarimi had anger issues, and said, “But [Mirkarimi] grabbed my arm and pushed me against the wall, yelling. Flores' testimony might show that Mirkarimi had a propensity for violence. This person is very much a pit bull and a bully.” The court ruled that the video and Flores' testimony were admissible if the matter had gone to trial. 

Finally, the play did not really tell the audience the current status of their marriage. 

And remember, Lopez refused to cooperate with investigators, claiming the matter was politically motivated. If both Mirkarimi and Lopez had fully cooperated at the beginning of the investigation, perhaps the matter would not have escalated into the soap opera it became. 

The bottom line is that Mirkarimi admitted committing domestic against Ms. Lopez and he pled guilty to false imprisonment. In addition, the San Francisco Ethics Commission in a 4-1 vote finding Mirkarimi engaged in official misconduct stemming from his New Year's Eve argument resulting in Ms. Lopez's bruised arm.  

I'm sure Mirkarimi hopes the domestic violence conviction will not lose him the re-election. I suspect Ms. Lopez will be an important part of the campaign and be the point person on any domestic violence issues.

The San Francisco Symphony program for Thursday-Saturday, June 4-6, offered music focusing on Spain, with the orchestra under the baton of Guest Conductor Charles Dutoit. Included in the program were Manuel De Falla’s Nights in the Gardens of Spain and two works by Maurice Ravel: the 7-minute piece Alborada del gracioso (1905), and the one-act opera L’Heure espagnole (1907). 

I attended the Friday evening concert and enjoyed the music thoroughly. However, I was dismayed to read on Saturday morning Joshua Kosman’s review of this program in the San Francisco Chronicle. To begin with, I don’t know how Kosman – or anyone – can say of a performance of Ravel’s L’Heure espagnole featuring mezzo-Soprano Isobel Leonard as Concepcion that, “It’s not easy to listen to the music for this piece, with its elaborate set pieces and ultra-dry parodies of Spanish themes, and believe that there are actual humans anywhere in the vicinity.” Isobel Leonard is perhaps the most exquisitely expressive opera singer on this planet! Aside from possessing a lustrous voice, Isobel Leonard invests every role she plays with the utmost dramatic commitment. In this concert version of L’Heure espagnole, the whole salty drama – a comic portrayal of attempted adultery – was brilliantly acted out in the facial features and body gestures of Isobel Leonard. Depending on the circumstances, Isobel Leonard’s Concepcion was in turn imperious, flirtatious, exasperated, conniving, manipulative, impatient, and always sensuous. In short, Isobel Leonard’s Concepcion was deeply human, which makes all the more inexplicable and misguided Joshua Kosman’s complaint about the lack of actual human beings in this opera . 

L’Heure espagnole takes place in a clockmaker’s shop in Toledo, and as the opera gets under way, the orchestra offers various tick-tocks, chimes, and cuckoo calls to create the ambience. As Concepcion, the bored wife of a clockmaker, Isobel Leonard imperiously orders her husband, Torquemada, sung by tenor Jean-Paul Fouchécourt, to leave his shop and go fix the town’s public clocks. Her reasons for this, however, involve having free time to welcome her poet-lover Gonzalve, sung by tenor John Mark Ainsley. When Gonzalve shows up, he turns out to be far more of a poetaster than a lover; and Concepcion’s frustration at Gonzalve’s wimpy poeticizing is registered not only in Isobel Leonard’s vocal asides but also in her furrowed brow, pursed lips, and dismissive waves of the hand. She clearly wants to put an end to the poeticizing and get on with the lovemaking.  

However, a muleteer who needs a watch fixed happens to be in the shop, and Concepcion must connive to get him out of the way. So she cajoles the muleteer, robustly sung by baritone Jean-Luc Ballestra, to move large grandfather clocks upstairs to her bedroom. Meanwhile, she urges the poet to hide in another of the huge clocks. When a local banker appears, sung by baritone David Wilson-Johnson, and tries to put the make on Concepcion, she consigns him to another of the clocks. Suffice it to say that there is much farcical movement of the grandfather clocks upstairs and downstairs, sometimes with one man or another hiding inside. 

Ravel’s music offers vivid characterizations. Torquemada, the foolish husband, initially sings florid praise of his beautiful wife; and Jean-Paul Fouchecourt’s high tenor voice offered limpid lyricism. But when Concepcion impatiently orders her husband out of the shop, he meekly complies. As the poet Gonzalve, tenor John Mark Ainsley sang with florid lyricism pushed to exaggerated lengths. As the banker, baritone David Wilson-Johnson initially sings in a ponderous, pompous manner, accompanied by a bassoon, although a bit later he takes a more playful tack in his vain efforts to woo Concepcion. Finally, as Ramiro, the muscular muleteer, baritone Jean-Luc Ballestra starts off shyly, then becomes flattered by Concepcion’s repeated requests to carry heavy clocks, and ultimately begins to sense her growing appreciation of him and his muscular build and huge biceps. Suffice it to say that, when it comes to romance, the muleteer gets his turn. 

Strictly in a musical sense, I take issue with Kosman’s characterization of L’Heure espagnole as being comprised of “elaborate set pieces.” Ravel composed this one-act opera without the usual operatic set pieces. Instead, like Debussy’s 1902 opera Pélleas et Mélisande, Ravel’s L’Heure espagnole proceeds by the very musical declamation of the French language in recitatives, with very few set pieces until the final quintet. Conductor Charles Dutoit, who has built a reputation for his expertise in the French repertoire, led the orchestra and singers in brisk fashion. All told, I found this performance of L’Heure espagnole, and especially the vocal and dramatic artistry of Isobel Leonard, extremely witty and eminently enjoyable. 

Also on the program for this concert was Ravel’s brief Alborada del gracioso. 

An alborada is a song sung at dawn, usually at the parting of two lovers. In this orchestral song by Ravel, the gracioso is a bit of a jester; and his song, when it comes, is played by a bassoon. As lovely as this song is, especially as played by bassoonist Stephen Paulson, there is too much bombastic music surrounding it for my taste. (Shades of Ravel’s Bolero!) Here too, I take issue with Joshua Kosman when he refers to this 7-minute piece as the highlight of the program.  

Likewise, I couldn’t disagree more strongly with Kosman when he dismisses Manuel De Falla’s Nights in the Gardens of Spain as “a flabby series of impressionistic tone paintings for piano and orchestra,” and goes on to fault pianist Javier Perianes for having “labored mightily – perhaps a little strenuously – to make a case for the music, without much success.” I found De Falla’s evocation of Spanish gardens quite enchanting. When De Falla went to Paris 1907, the first French composer he met was his idol Maurice Ravel. De Falla soon joined Ravel in the group known as “Les Apaches” (“The Apaches”), a group of musicians, poets, and critics who championed the new impressionism in music. De Falla quickly composed his Nights in the Gardens of Spain in which there are three movements -- the first entitled “Generalife,” evoking the famous gardens surrounding Granada’s Alhambra; the second “Danza lejaña” (“Distant Dance”); and the third entitled “In the Gardens of the Sierra de Córdoba.” Throughout this 23-minute work, De Falla makes subtle use of guitar-like music played by violins, as well as gypsy and flamenco rhythms. The piano offers obligatato accompaniment and blends in subtly as an additional orchestral texture; a feature brought out successfully by Spanish pianist Javier Perianes.