[Editor's Note: This piece originally appeared on 48hills.org]

Measure that would undermine local affordable-housing rules heads for Assembly with Gov. Jerry Brown's support

The State Assembly may vote as early as Monday on a bill that would give real estate developers a huge windfall at the expense of tenants, small businesses, and neighborhoods.

Gov. Jerry Brown is supporting the measure, which would exempt developers from local zoning and land use policies of if they building apartments or condos that includes potentially miniscule amounts of affordable housing.

Why is Jerry Brown supporting a measure that undermines affordable housing?

The measure could have a profound impact on cities like San Francisco, turning great swaths of land over for luxury housing with absolutely zero local control. It’s one of the most dangerous bills for tenants, neighborhoods, and affordable housing that we’ve seen in years, and would lead to dramatically increased displacement of vulnerable communities.

Yet it has received little press coverage – and very little in the way of outspoken opposition from Bay Area political leaders. 

AB2501, by Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica) is the equivalent of the Ellis Act for zoning laws – it trumps local laws for real estate speculators and developers under the guise of benefiting people who need housing. 

On the surface, AB2501 merely tweaks the already hyper-technical language of the state’s existing “density bonus” law. That state law gives developers the option to apply to city planning departments to build housing developments that are taller or more dense (i.e., with more housing units) than local law allows. 

In exchange for an exception or concession from local law, developers must build between five and ten percent of the housing at prices affordable to low or moderate income households – a more modest version of the mandatory inclusionary housing requirement that San Francisco imposes on all new medium and large scale housing developments. 

The state density bonus has been on the books for years and done little to produce affordable housing. Instead of trying a different strategy (such as adopting a mandatory statewide inclusionary policy, or allocating more state money for affordable housing) state legislators and now the governor are blaming local governments for the failure of the density bonus policy and more generally for the housing crisis. 

This is an element of truth to this criticism. So-called Nimby exclusionary zoning practices are widespread. But the larger reality is that land owners and builders are not lacking in places to build. Cities could decide that some of those sites should be something other than luxury housing, particularly when two-thirds of existing Bay Area residents can’t afford market-rate units. 

The problem is that the building and real-estate industries have a huge lock on California politics. Those groups spend a fortune on campaign contributions and lobbying – and the largesse goes to both parties. So now, with the support of the Realtors and California Apartment Association, Democrats in the Assembly have come up with AB2501. 

In a nutshell, AB2501 would give developers a free pass to demand exemptions from local law. For every five-to-ten percent increment of affordable housing in a development, developers would get one free pass for a concession or exemption from local zoning or land use law. According to the California Chapter of the American Planning Association, the bill would: 

“allow a developer who provides as little as 5% affordable housing units to get any incentive, concession, or waiver from zoning or development standard he or she asks for without providing any justification whatsoever for the request.” 

The legislation is not specific about what local laws can be bypassed– but typically these are described as height limits, reductions or elimination of back yards, and density and size of units. But creative developers could seek waivers of laws protecting small businesses, regulating condominium conversions, and beyond. 

It would take much planning out of the hands of local planning commissions, city councils, and board of supervisors. 

The measure would also create strict time limits for city planners to approve project proposals or to identify specific changes that would be required to comply with the law. Failure to meet the time lines would result in the automatic approval of the entire project. Disgruntled developers could sue the city and then require the city to pay for their attorney’s fees. 

AB2501 would further ties the hands of cities and the public by prohibiting public agencies from asking for additional reporting or analysis of a project. The narrowing of a city government’s ability to review and require improvements of a proposal would have a direct and adverse impact on the public’s ability to control real estate development in their communities. 

Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Jane Kim introduced a resolution at the Board of Supervisors to urge that AB2501 be amended to provide for an exemption for cities that are building more affordable housing than the state density bonus law would yield. If the legislation were targeted at cities that excluded affordable housing, logically the law should exempt those cities that do the opposite. That measure passed without opposition. 

Peskin requested but has been unsuccessful arrangement a meeting with Assemblymember Bloom. And thus far, neither of San Francisco’s representatives in the Assembly, Phil Ting or David Chiu have offered to introduce the amendment. Chiu voted in favor of the AB2501 in committee with minor amendments. Ting hasn’t taken a position. 

When the Ellis Act passed, a lot of local officials, and even SF’s representatives in Sacramento, downplayed the threat, saying the measure wasn’t that big a deal. It’s turned out to be one of the worst nightmares tenants have ever seen, a massive attack on affordable housing in cities like SF. 

This is in the same league – and if it isn’t stopped soon, it could be too late.

Bear with me because I will start by addressing some housing economics but will get to homelessness and the housing crisis:

Someone in an online forum asserted to me that: "Increasing the supply to meet demand will help. But it won't make up for decades of neglect - had we been building market rate housing all along, "

Bosh. That is a popular myth but it is simply false. The myth is oft-repeated by lobbyists for developers, but the myth can be shown false in many ways. Those lobbyists who are not confused as to the facts are simply liars.

Not as proof, but just to give you something to think about....

Like the song says: "Do you remember your President Nixon"? From 1970 to 1990 the population of this city fell. Units were being withdrawn from the market. The occupancy per unit was falling. The 1970s and 1980s were a time of industrial contraction and stagflation (and the Bay Area economy had a much larger industrial component taking the brunt of this). By the 1980s, interest rates were through the roof. Home prices during this period grew, but they grew unremarkably in relation to general inflation. It is the absurd contention of the lobbyists that during this period, investors were anxious to add hundreds or thousands of units per year, each and every year. The failure to build lots and lots of new apartments during a period of expensive money and declining demand was, say these lobbyists, something we can blame on Berkeley liberals, all of whom are now gray, ponytailed, greedy millionaires. That is pretty much the line of argument you are echoing.  

 

The affordability crisis really revealed itself from 2000 to 2010. Under the loose monetary policies of the Greenspan Fed, during a time in history where there were few investments available in new production, asset prices including real estate started inflating through the roof. During that period, Berkeley gained new housing units FASTER than it gained new households. During that period, Berkeley's overall vacancy rate went up AND housing became less affordable. 

Are you sure you want to stick to that supply-side argument about the present situation? 

Now back towards the homeless issues: 

My online friend, remarking on the idea that more homeless people should leave town than do, wrote: "I'm not proposing to "evict" anyone. I am saying that if you are not housed and not generating enough income to be housed, you have a slim chance of becoming housed and should expand your field of possibilities" 

People are being evicted. Forced migration has picked up considerably. The highways are increasingly clogged as opportunities for work and opportunities for housing grow more and more distant from one another. Public transportation is both overcrowded and crumbling and the money is not there to expand and repair it. More than half of the population is "housing insecure" in the sense that if they lose their housing, for any reason, they are likely to be forced to migrate or become homeless. Today's sizable homeless population, though it is impressive, is tiny compared to what is in the pipeline. 

This is an emergency. The vague idea that the poor can go live in a rust belt suburb or sleepy desert town has no footing against the scope of the problem now confronting society. 

You are living in the next Great Depression, even though for various technical reasons this is hidden in such statistics as headline GDP. 

My interlocutor, a well intended Berkeleyan wrote: "I am not interested in spending more public money mistaking people's wants for needs. " 

Nobody like a moocher but don't worry, the public revenue is not enough to solve any of these problems. 

In the 1930s, deficit spending by the federal government at an enormous scale was able to raise aggregate demand enough to expand output. As it turns out, the only project of that scale the capitalists could agree upon was the project of World War II. (After all, while the allied nations languished during the depression, the Germans had achieved full employment quite swiftly by deficit spending to build a Wehrmacht.) 

After the war, first at Bretton Woods and then again during the Nixon Shock, the Keynesian system of boosting aggregate demand was enshrined internationally, with the U.S. playing the role of the principle debtor. The catch is that, as Keynes himself wrote, is that the key to this system is that its long term impact is to keep nominal wages the same or growing, but to steadily erode real wages. In that way, the steady improvements to productivity could be offset by driving down the real price of labor. 

Eventually, as even Keynes knew, such a system must drive wages below what it costs workers to live. Looking at his charts and tables, Keynes forecast that this point would be reached by around today. And here we are. (He left instructions which, interestingly, agree with Marx's: Reduce the length of the work week until either full employment is achieved or capitalism has given way to production for use rather than profit.) 

Here is the point: if you look honestly and fully at the economic developments since the 1930s until today, it is absolutely impossible to reduce economic inequality and poverty to questions of relative merit or virtue. Neither can the problems be explained so simply as the result of greed by this or that seller of goods or services. To take either position to engage in some kind of head-in-the-sand denialism.

New research from UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project stresses the need for the production of both market-rate and subsidized housing, along with aggressive preservation of affordable units and protection for tenants, to resolve the San Francisco Bay Area’s housing affordability crisis.

“Our research suggests that both subsidized and market-rate housing development make a difference. But producing market-rate housing alone will not improve affordability for low-income households,” says Miriam Zuk, who along with UC Berkeley city and regional planning professor Karen Chapple heads the project based at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies.

Research by UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project shows that subsidized housing has more than double the impact of market-rate units in terms of alleviating displacement pressure.  

The project’s latest brief, “Housing Production, Filtering and Displacement: Untangling the Relationship,” offers insights into the complex links between housing production, neighborhood affordability and neighborhood change/displacement. 

Key research findings include: 

• In the San Francisco Bay Area, both market-rate and subsidized housing reduce displacement pressures, but subsidized housing has more than double the impact of market-rate units.
• Market-rate production takes time to have an effect: It is associated with higher housing cost burdens for low-income families, but is linked to lower median rents in subsequent decades.
• At the block group level in San Francisco, neither market-rate nor subsidized housing production has the same protective power as at the regional scale, likely due to the severe mismatch between local demand and supply.

The brief rebuts a February 2016 report from California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office that used project data to argue that market-rate development would be the most effective way to prevent displacement of low-income households from their neighborhoods in the state’s coastal areas. 

Project researchers say the LAO failed to adequately investigate the lengthy and complex filtering process that can make market-rate housing more affordable over time. 

“If you omit data on the impact of housing subsidized by low-income housing tax credits and other federal and state programs, you miss a key solution to the crisis,” says Chapple. By using that data, the Urban Displacement Project found that for every one subsidized housing unit, two or more market-rate units would need to be built to create the same reduction in displacement pressure. 

The researchers’ report, “Housing Production, Filtering and Displacement: Untangling the Relationships,” concludes that “to help stabilize existing communities, we need to look beyond housing development alone to strategies that protect tenants and help them stay in their homes.” 

These findings are the latest from the Urban Displacement Project as part of its two-year examination of gentrification and displacement, which has engaged dozens of local nonprofit organizations and regional agencies. 

The project was funded by the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission and California’s Air Resources Board to determine the effect of transit and other public investments on displacement, and to search for ways to ensure future housing affordability. 

Maps and reports are online at http://www.urbandisplacement.org/.

Recent revelations regarding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) mismanagement of Pacific Steel Casting's (PSC) Synthetic Minor Operating Permit (SMOP) has raised many questions about the process, the air district's engineers, and more specifically, how the steel foundry has been allowed to operate outside the legal requirements of Title V and its SMOP.

Federal guidelines make PSC ultimately responsible for compliance to their permit. The task of issuing the SMOP for PSC's operations and for verifying the foundry's compliance is held by BAAQMD. Therefore, the air district should be held responsible for the many years of PSC’s noncompliance and their regulatory failure to accurately track the company’s emissions. If BAAQMD's forthcoming pronouncement holds true to its history, then the air district is likely to say that the long-term permit debacle doesn’t really make any difference. Perhaps to those at the district who have mismanaged this permit, it hasn’t, but for our downwind community, concerns over emissions, odors and possible health impacts have plagued residents and businesses as well as numerous children's play spaces and facilities for decades.

The air district certainly knows that two permits make a significant difference compared to one permit in accounting for total emission volumes when it comes to shielding the company’s actual impact on the surrounding community. More importantly, the permit’s discharge limits dictate BAAQMD's legal response to PSC’s operations. In the case of PSC, it has allowed the company to fly under the regulatory radar and increase their air emissions in tandem with diminishing requirements to make upgrades to their operations or to require any additional site monitoring. This flagrant disregard by both the air district and PSC has been to the detriment of local residents' health. 

Perhaps at the time PSC's permit was first reconfigured into two separate SMOPs, the air district's engineers might have had some latitude then to argue that BAAQMD or PSC had misinterpreted the regulations that allowed for the SMOP downgrade. However, the idea that BAAQMD simply made a mistake in tracking the PSC permits over the last eleven years is simply inexcusable and a flagrant misuse of their regulatory discretion and mandate. 

In 2005, the demand for the consolidation of the two SMOPs into one permit was unique as regulatory actions go, and not likely to have been forgotten by BAAQMD. In fact, some of today’s staff, including air engineers and permitting personnel, at the air district's office were signatories to the demand to enjoin PSC’s SMOPs at that time. However, BAAQMD was not the first regulatory agency to call for corrective action. If the community had waited for the air district to identify this breach of the permit, it might never have been discovered. That regulatory distinction belongs to the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9's Air Division (US EPA) in response to a Berkeley citizen's complaint. 

Regulatory history also shows a direct link to PSC’s noncompliance in 2005 of its Title V permit and the community-driven lawsuit in 2006 against the Berkeley company. Although the lawsuit was not initiated in order to force the consolidation of the company's permits, it did, in part, focus on an evaluation of the total volumes of emissions for all of PSC’s operations. These calculations are central to the SMOP's regulatory compliance, but were absent from PSC’s permitting process for many years. In the resulting court action, PSC agreed to reduce its emissions by two tons. However, this condition of the permit, like the SMOP permits, was apparently never assimilated into the operating permit for PSC or tracked by BAAQMD to insure regulatory compliance with the court settlement. 

CEQA and BAAQMD Permitting 

The 2007 consent decree is not the first time that BAAQMD permitting practices sidestepped a court agreement with PSC. In the late 1990s, the steel foundry was under a Conditional Order of Abatement stemming back to the mid 1980s. BAAQMD was well aware of this regulatory sanction because of the many years of community complaints and regulatory focus. Nevertheless, the air district deliberately violated this court order and allowed for a new source at PSC that both increased emissions and generated odors. 

The “bake oven", or "thermal recycler”, as it was described by the air district, burns away the chemical binders from spent foundry cores. In a BAAQMD Hearing Board discussion several years later, the air district's engineering staff reluctantly admitted that the permit conditions for the then-new incinerator allowed for temperature excursions that would result in odor production during operations. It was also revealed that BAAQMD staff never actually tested the new equipment’s excursions prior to its being permitted and operated. This permit process for PSC found BAAQMD to be more of a promoter of the new technology than of its regulator. 

It is uncertain whether our local congresswoman, Barbara Lee, or the City of Berkeley staff were actually aware of the legal restrictions at PSC at that time that prohibited this new odorous source or if they were just blindsided by the air district's approval of the new incinerator. Nevertheless, BAAQMD was quick to set aside their own regulatory responsibilities to their agency, the court and the community by allowing the permitting of what was basically an incinerator. The City of Berkeley later gave PSC an environmental award for this new and untested pollution source. 

BAAQMD's permitting of the incinerator also set a precedent as to how the air district and the City of Berkeley would together manage future air quality impacts within the city’s zoning process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Neither the city nor the air district chose to subject the PSC incinerator to an evaluation as required by CEQA, despite the fact that the Duck’s Nest, a childcare school, was within 1,000 feet of this pollution source. It should be noted that shortly after the air district's approval of the permit and the installation was completed, staff from the Duck’s Nest addressed BAAQMD's Hearing Board expressing public concerns over impacts from PSC's emissions on their business. 

See: Maximum Sensitive Receptor: the Duck’s Nest Day Care Center (R57),Evaluation of Final Health Risk Assessment for the Pacific Steel Casting Facility in West Berkeley. By Dr. Mark Chernaik, Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide/Science for Citizens, November 2011  

An evaluation under CEQA would have been problematic to the approval of the incinerator if there had been a full public disclosure of the proposed project and a honest community discussion of this new emission source. The air district's rationale for supporting the project was to control fugitive emissions from PSC company trucks hauling spent sand cores off site. Furthermore, BAAQMD asserted it would be more environmentally sensitive to incinerate, on site, the chemical binders used to construct the cores. What BAAQMD refused to acknowledge was the fact that the incinerator had been illegally permitted by the air district. 

The regulatory choice to allow on-site burning was incompatible with the nearby neighborhoods since there is no buffer from the foundry’s operations. This most undesirable tradeoff dispersed the resulting chemical and particulate emissions from the incinerator over a wide range of west Berkeley at the expense of both residents and businesses. When the community requested an investigation of these permitting incongruities, even the Enforcement Division of the California Air Resources Board made a trip to Berkeley and chose to do nothing. 

It should also be noted that BAAQMD led the drive to vacate the Conditional Order of Abatement in 2000 against the objections of a very vocal, affected community. This action by the air district supporting the termination of the court order would prove to be a serious error as the preceding years with its numerous notices of violation (NOVs) would testify to. The court restrictions went away, but the odors have remained. The air district's response has been to allow PSC to attempt to mask these odorous chemical emissions. 

The HEPA Kids of West Berkeley 

The misconfigured foundry's SMOP and the “creative” permitting practices under CEQA continue to impact the growing residential and commercial community in west Berkeley. After the permitting of the incinerator, the City of Berkeley, in the role of regulator, developer and owner, engaged in no less than four projects within a quarter mile of PSC. Each of these use permits focused on children’s play spaces. Each of the CEQA reviews for these projects was challenged with regard to air quality and the obvious impacts it would have on our youngest citizens. The city introduced a required environmental waiver from soccer parents of participating children, acknowledging they had be made aware of the poor air quality and high particulate levels at the play fields. This mitigation was never implemented. 

In each of the four projects, requests were made for a more extensive environmental review that would evaluate the cumulative impacts from the manufacturing area’s other stationary sources, including the City of Berkeley's Solid Waste Transfer Station and Recycling Center. All these formal public requests were summarily rejected. The City of Berkeley, with no objection from BAAQMD, preferred a more piecemeal approach that would narrow the discussion of airborne emissions and their associated health risks. It would also limit the need for additional mitigations of these suspected risks. Like the SMOP permits, these abbreviated investigations would limit the record of significant airborne emissions, giving a distorted evaluation of the area’s actual air quality. 

Of the city’s four use permits, the most egregious misuse of CEQA has been the Ursula Sherman transitional housing at 711 Harrison Street. Mothers and their children have been allowed to reside there for extended stays (nearly two years) in the middle of our light industrial sector, close to the PSC foundry and within yards of the city’s Solid Waste Transfer Station and Recycling Center. All of these projects down played the area's poor air quality and suggested that exposure to these airborne toxics is a fair trade off for the opportunity afforded children to live and exercise within our manufacturing district. The consultant for the transitional housing project, Environ, erroneously placed PSC several blocks downwind from the proposed site in making their evaluation. The City Council refused to address this fact despite it being brought to their attention during all their deliberations and consequent approval. This is but one of many distortions that skewed the zoning review process. 

Another factor in the city's lack of action concerning the area’s air quality has been the city’s own discharge permit for its solid waste and recycling operations. The Ursula Sherman transitional housing is a mere 50 yards downwind from these city operations. In 2003, city staff conducted a brief study of emissions at the transfer station and installed a water suppression system only to discover that emissions had actually increased several months later. The transfer station, along with PSC, produces a substantial portion of the area’s stationary-source particulates. However, the city has failed to upgrade that facility in the more than a dozen years since this discovery. 

The city's air quality mitigation for the transitional housing was to keep the children and their mothers indoors. Sealing up the windows and doors, installing rooftop HEPA-filters and keeping children inside seems more like a movie script from a sci-fi film than what has become the city’s zoning prescription in west Berkeley to "mitigate" its poor air quality. These measures do little to safeguard those who live, work and play in west Berkeley from exposure to toxic air emissions. For two decades, HEPA-filters have been the City of Berkeley’s only answer to mitigate the very real risks from poor air quality. 

Throwing All Caution to the Winds 

The BAAQMD regulatory process in Berkeley has been one of “Don’t look; don’t tell.” This has been the posture of the City of Berkeley as well, to fractionalize the understanding of both the emissions and their health impacts. This is a regulatory mindset that has been honed over two or more decades and that will not easily be changed. This crafted strategy has propped up an institutionalized environmental injustice in west Berkeley. Fair treatment should be afforded to people of all income levels with respect to housing, including the development, implementation and enforcement of laws, regulations and policies that safeguard people's health.  

In the last twenty years, our community has watched first hand the dishonest permitting evaluations and health risk assessments of BAAQMD that have allowed for dispersion modeling of pollutants with improper wind parameters and outdated emissions data. These permitting allowances have enabled PSC to argue that its pollution is blowing away from Berkeley and not on its actual downwind neighbors. 

West Berkeley is noticeably absent from any of the programs that BAAQMD promotes in other parts of the Bay Area that pertain to the evaluation of health impacts and risk reductions. Part of this blame should be directed at the City of Berkeley’s reluctance to go down this path, even after receiving formal requests from the community and our commission process. It is no wonder that west Berkeley toxic emissions have been allowed to grow as have the health risks. It is apparent who has benefited from these practices. The only question that remains to be answered is: "At what cost?"

People registered Green, Peace & Freedom , or any other minor party (including Republican) who want to vote in the Democratic presidential primary have got to change their registration by Monday. It’s easiest to register Democratic, but they can also check the no party preference box, but then they have to specifically ask for a Democratic “cross-over” ballot.

People can come to the Bernie Sanders East Bay office, at 5615 College Ave.in Oakland (formerly Alta Bates Thrift Shop - just south of the Rockridge BART station) and fill out and turn one in there - they will be open all weekend, and will also turn in all registrations received by Monday afternoon. Alternatively, if they have a California driver's license or DMV-issued ID card, they can go to the Secretary of State’s website, at registertovote.ca.gov and register on-line.

Finally, they can also register in person at the Registrar of Voter’s office, in the basement of the courthouse in downtown Oakland (1225 Fallon Street), which will be open this weekend, and, if they do that, they can pick up their Democratic ballot and vote at the same time.  

A community meeting will be held on Tuesday May 24 concerning the application for a master use permit to develop the 8.5 acre site at Addison and Bolivar Drive on Aquatic Park. The public is invited to attend from 6:30 to 8:30 pm at the Frances Albrier Community Center, 2800 Park St. in San Pablo Park. 

An application with a project address of 600 Addison Street has been submitted to create a campus of four to six buildings mostly devoted to research and development using the master use permit section (23B.36) of the Berkeley Zoning Code. In 2012 the City attempted to expand the height and other allowances under the master use permit section as Measure T, which was narrowly defeated citywide but highly unpopular in the neighborhoods closest to the park. 

Concern about maintaining the views of the hills from the pedestrian bridge and the park was a factor in the defeat of Measure T, prompting Citizens for Eastshore Parks (CESP) to commission a height study which shows the effects of various buildings heights on views from the park, the pedestrian bridge, and the brickyard across the freeway, an area of McLaughlin State Park now in the initial stages of development. Even building heights of 45’ would block views from the Aquatic Park, less so from the pedestrian bridge. The alignment and placement of the proposed buildings would impact the views, especially since the project site is sloped from Fourth Street to Bolivar Drive along the lagoon, which once formed the eastern edge of San Francisco Bay. 

Traffic is also studied in an analysis by Fehr and Peers that shows impacts from the R & D as well as a residential alternative. It is unclear if the latter possibility has been rejected or who would occupy the R&D alternative. The traffic study reveals increased trips at several intersections for the R&D project, especially at Addison and 2^nd and 4^th ; Bancroft, University, and along Sixth, a residential street that is already jam packed at rush hour as well as Dwight Way and San Pablo Avenues. Hopefully the meeting will look at mitigations including an expanded BART shuttle service in West Berkeley. 

The community has become increasingly concerned that new projects, both commercial and residential, are not paying their fair share of impact fees. An appropriate community benefit for this development would be repair of the tide tubes that are deteriorating. The cost is currently estimated about $1 million by the Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department in a recent report on park needs citywide. The ecology of the lagoons is already suffering due to the reduction in tidal flow, with reduced oxygen to support the plants, fish, and birds who rely on circulation of Bay water for their survival. 

The project application is worth reading for the history of the site, including old assessor maps, geography, background on dilapidated buildings and their previous uses, and other information unique to this location. 

---

Toni Mester is a resident of West Berkeley

There's a lot going on at the regional planning level. Berkeley resident and former Planet columnist Zelda Bronstein has been covering it in exhaustive detail on the 48Hills website maintained by former Bay Guardian editor Tim Redmond. See it here: 

A regional-planning coup: Bay Area could become the only region where unaccountable transit agency controls local planning policy

For a shorter take on the topic, see this op-ed by another Berkeleyan, Revan Tranter: 

Maintain the local voice in Bay Area land use — oppose MTC plan

According to the Chronicle: Revan Tranter is a former executive director of the Association of Bay Area Governments. He is joined in this view by former ABAG executive directors Eugene Leong and Henry Gardner[the best city manager Oakland ever had].

A female student was sexually assaulted Sunday afternoon on campus at the University of California at Berkeley, according to police information released yesterday. 

The assault was reported at 2:29 p.m. in the Oxford Parking Lot, in the vicinity of Hearst Avenue and Oxford Street, police said. 

The victim was walking through the parking lot when she was grabbed and sexually assaulted by a male suspect, according to police.  

A description of the suspect was not available. 

Anyone with information about the assault is asked to contact investigators at (510) 642-0472 or (510) 642-6760.

Last week I was lucky enough to see a production of one of my favorites, The Wiz, at the splendid and amazing East Bay Center for the Performing Arts in Richmond. Actually, the show, which featured students of approximately high school age, offered several of my favorites, since it was a mash-up of tunes from all three versions of the enduring Wizard of Oz story, which has now attained mythic status.

In particular, I was delighted once again to hear once again my favorite journalism theme song of all time, as sung by The Wiz’s wickedest witch, Evillene: Don’t Nobody Never Bring Me No Bad News.

How, you might wonder, does this qualify as a journalism theme? Well, for a start, let’s look at the ongoing controversy about a localized social networking website which tries to bridge the gap between neighborhood gossip and commercial news, nextdoor.com, offering a version of citizen journalism for neighborhoods.

It’s taken a lot of heat lately because it has published, among other things, postings from people who suspect that someone they’ve seen on their street is a bad actor. This has engendered a spate of OMG-ing stories in the conventional press about NextDoor being a tool for racists. 

Here’s an East Bay Express story from last October: 

Racial Profiling Via Nextdoor.com --White Oakland residents are increasingly using the popular social networking site to report "suspicious activity" about their Black neighbors — and families of color fear the consequences could be fatal. 

It’s undeniable that many people, mostly White people but occasionally even people of color, leap to unwarranted conclusions when they see Black people and others of color in neighborhoods where they’re not commonly seen on the street. (Police, of course, can be the worst offenders, because they carry weapons and they use them, too often against people who pose no real risk.) 

It’s particularly offensive when the only characteristic observers are able to report is skin color, which strongly suggests racial profiling which stereotypes African-Americans in particular as potential criminals. 

But here’s the thing: don’t blame the messenger. Some complaints have suggested that Nextdoor should not allow users to submit “suspicious person” descriptions which mention race. 

That’s just wrong. If there are racists out there, especially the dangerous variety who don’t even know they’re racists, it’s a lot better to know about it than to hide it. 

Nextdoor took the very effective initial step of requiring posters to use their real names. People behave a lot better when they have to answer for their opinions. This is way preferable to the kind of local blogs which publish endless dogwhistlish racist comments under pseudonyms (and if you don’t know how dogwhistle is used in this context, google it.) The sites which put a lot of effort into screening them and deleting the ones the editors don’t approve of are just dull most of the time. 

I myself seldom read anonymous comments because they’re most likely to be either toxic or boring.  

Allowing the fearful to articulate their presuppositions in signed letters gives more thoughtful readers the chance to set them straight. My Elmwood Nextdoor crowd is way too PC to be overtly racist, of course, but when comments from elsewhere in the Berkeley/Oakland area have been published I’ve seen posts that surely offend people of color and might even endanger them. But almost immediately such posts have been countered by intelligent articulate explanations of why it’s wrong to jump to conclusions based on the race of the new person you see on your block.  

In some places the voices of reason do seem to be absent from the discourse, but if you are unlucky enough to live in one of these places, better you should know that.  

My favorite mantra about what to do about speech that offends you comes from Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his famous 1927 Whitney v. California opinion : "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."  

It’s just possible that the offensive posters might learn something this way, and at least with their names in print dark-skinned neighbors know who to watch out for. 

Nextdoor is not a charitable institution or a non-profit. It’s backed by a ton of venture capital, and according to press reports Founder Nirav Tolia wants to do the right thing in this matter. His announced efforts to find a way of flagging offensive comments and reproving inappropriate commenters seem to be sincere. 

From his pictures and his name we can surmise that he’s not a classic Northern-European-American, but more likely of South Asian heritage, and has perhaps not always escaped profiling himself—but there we go, stereotyping again.  

His Nextdoor product is unpretentious and useful, especially for small domestic matters. When my 60-year-old couch collapsed hours before a large party at Christmas, I noticed a much nicer leather one being given away a few blocks from home, and it was delivered by the donor, completely free, within hours, just in time for the guests. Last week I picked up cuttings from a plant I’ve always admired and got to know the amazing gardener who offered it in the process. A woman who dropped her apartment key while jogging through the neighborhood got it back after posting on Nextdoor, saving herself a $60 replacement fee. Lost dogs have been found, by the dozens. This is all good. 

Sometimes good is the use of Nextdoor for civic messages that might be called political. I’ve often learned from Nextdoor about controversial city meetings that somehow weren’t reported to the Planet by city-paid press agents (I wonder why…).  

But I hear from a couple of my more pungent correspondents that they think they’ve been banned from Nextdoor by the local moderators, who volunteer in each Nextdoor-designated neighborhood. I haven’t confirmed this myself. I do however hear from other equally pungent political types that their Nextdoor-delivered agit-prop has been welcome and influential in other neighborhoods, so it might be that some local moderators are over-zealous. 

Despite criticism, I think it would be a great mistake to try to bully Nextdoor into adopting the Evillene stance and banning bad news. Here in Berkeley at least we have a plentiful supply of Good News reporting, but except for police reports we hear comparatively little about the neighborhood nastiness which exists just under the surface, yes, even here in Lotusland.  

There are efforts underway to tell people how to report suspicious people without stereotyping. These suggest using more complete descriptions than just race, but that doesn’t address the flawed emotional processes which prompt such reports in the first place. Those of us who use and appreciate Nextdoor should take advantage of the opportunity it offers to bring such feelings into the light of day so that they can be countered by reason. 

If the lady down the block freaks out when she sees a Black face, my African-American house painter needs to know that for his own protection, not to mention my own family members and friends who are people of color. But not only that, if she uses the Nextdoor site where she is required to sign her name, it gives others the opportunity (and the responsibility) to explain to her, calmly and in a non-crisis situation, that she’s overreacting. Responding in writing on the Nextdoor site can be, and should be, non-confrontational, and it might actually change some minds for the better. 

---

Here’s the movie version of Evillene, overdone so not nearly as good as the lightly staged student versions I’ve seen, but still great: 

 

This message from Berkeley Zoning Adjustment Board Chair Denise Pinkston was posted on the San Francisco BARF website: 

 

 

---

From: Denise Pinkston
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2016
Subject: Help on Tuesday in Sacramento!

Dear housing colleague

On Tuesday the Governor's ground-breaking budget trailer bill proposal for "by right" approvals of infill housing with on-site affordability will be heard in the State Senate at 10am. See links below for details. We have been asked to please come and speak.

Please plan on coming to Sacramento on Tuesday at 10am for the Senate Budget Committee hearing to help communicate that we need the state legislature and governor to streamline local approvals in order to build more homes more quickly and more affordably for our families who desperately need a place to live. This proposal can make a tremendous difference in housing production and we must all weigh in because the state advocates who want no change will be there in force.

Please let me know if you can make it. I will send you more details.

> Governor’s May Revision (starting on page 45): http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
>
> HCD’s May Revision Proposal (BCP): http://web1a.esd.dof.ca.gov/Documents/bcp/1617/FY1617_ORG2240_BCP859.pdf 

---

Are the Governor's proposals what Berkeley needs? Weigh in: opinion@berkeleydailyplanet.com. 

“Larger now than the Roman Empire of two thousand years ago, more opaque than the Byzantine, the European Union continues to baffle observers and participants alike.”

—Perry Anderson, British historian

The European Union is one of the premier trade organizations on the planet, with a collective GDP that matches the world’s largest economies. But it is far more than a trade group. It is also a banker, a judicial system, a watchdog, a military alliance, and, increasingly, an enforcer of economic rules among its 28 members.

On the one hand it functions like a super state, on the other, a collection of squabbling competitors, with deep divisions between north and south. On June 23, the two-decade-old organization will be put to the test when Great Britain—its second largest economy—votes to stay in the EU or bail out.

The awkwardly named “Brexit” has stirred up a witches’ brew of xenophobia, racism and nationalism, but it has also served to sharpen a long standing debate among the European left over the nature of the organization, and whether it serves to unite a continent shattered by two world wars or functions as little more than a vehicle to spread a particular species of capitalism that has impoverished more people than it has lifted up.  

 

The EU was originally sold as an effective way to compete with U.S. and Japanese commercial power (and later China) by integrating the economies of Western Europe into a common market. The 1957 Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community (EEC), but that organization was plagued by currency instability. 

Currency manipulation is a standard economic strategy, one the U.S. Treasury follows to this day. The idea is to boost exports by deflating one’s currency, thus making one’s products cheaper. In an organization like the EEC, however, where currencies were traded back and forth, that strategy caused chaos, particularly after the Americans decoupled the dollar from gold in 1971. The U.S. immediately began aggressively devaluing its currency and undercutting Germany. 

To make a long history brief, Germany and France began pushing for a common currency, though for different reasons. 

For Germany, fluctuating currency rates cut into that country’s export engine. For France, a common currency would give Paris some say over the EEC’s economic policies through the creation of a European Central Bank, policies that at the time were largely determined by Germany’s powerful economy. 

Although Britain opted out of adopting the Euro, London rapidly became the financial center of the continent. In the end, 19 countries would adopt the Euro, creating the Eurozone. Eight others, including Denmark, Sweden and Poland kept their own currencies. 

The common currency—established by the 1991 Maastricht Treaty and launched in 1999—effectively put the German Bundesbank in charge. Bonn agreed to the common currency, but only on the condition that everyone kept their budget deficits to 3 percent of national income and held their government debt level at 60 percent of GDP. Those figures matched Germany’s economy, but very few of the other states in the EU.  

The Maastricht Treaty also transformed the EEC into the EU in 1993. 

Deflating one’s currency as a tactic to increase exports and stimulate growth during a downturn was no longer an option, and the debt ratio was set so low that few economies could keep to its strictures. When the bottom fell out during the 2008 economic meltdown, EU states found out just what they had signed on for: draconian austerity measures, the widespread privatization of state owned enterprises—from water and electrical systems, to airports and harbors—and emigration. Millions of mainly young Portuguese, Irish, Greeks and Spaniards fled abroad. 

The European Central Bank—with its cohorts, the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission, the so-called Troika—straitjacketed economies throughout the continent, turning countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland into basket cases, forcing them to borrow money to keep their banks afloat while instituting austerity regimes that led to massive unemployment, huge service cutbacks, and rising poverty rates. 

The Troika had a neat trick: it shifted the debts incurred by private speculators on to the public, while the Germans spun up a fairy tale to explain the counter-example: the frugal frau. 

“The Swabian housewife,” lectured German Chancellor Angela Merkel, “would have told us her worldly wisdom: In the long run you cannot live beyond your means.” 

Except that the debts were not due to the Greeks, Irish, Spaniards, and Portuguese “living beyond their means.” They were just picking up the tab run up by the speculators. The vast majority of “bailouts” that followed the crash went directly into the vaults of French, British, German, and Austrian banks. On the day the Greek “bailout” was announced, French bank shares rose 24 percent. 

In many ways, the EU resembles a military alliance on the march. Jan Zielonka, a professor of European politics at Oxford, calls the EU a “postmodern empire,” filling the vacuum created by the fall of the Soviet Union, using “checkbooks rather than swords as leverage.” During the Clinton administration, the EU—along with NATO—pushed eastward, creating what Zbigniew Brzezinski called “the Eurasian bridgehead for American power and the potential springboard for the democratic system’s expansion into Eurasia.” 

The Obama administration strongly supports the UK remaining in the EU. 

But the EU has very little to do with “democracy,” as the recent Greek crisis demonstrated. In a confrontation between the then newly elected Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis and German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble, the latter refused to negotiate over the austerity program that had cratered Greece’s economy. “I’m not discussing the program,” said Schauble, “This was accepted by the previous [Greek] government and we can’t possibly let an election change anything.” 

In short, the Troika—an unelected body—makes all economic decisions and is unwilling to consider any other approach but that of the mythical Swabian housewife. It isn’t democracy moving east, but the Bundesbank, and a species of capitalism that is unmoved by unemployment, poverty and widespread misery 

So is the Brexit a challenge to the growing might of capital and an implicit critique of the EU’s dearth of democracy? Nothing’s that simple. 

First, the loudest critics of the EU are people one needs a very long spoon to sup with: Marine Le Pen’s racist National Front, Britain’s xenophobic United Kingdom Independence Party, Hungary’s thuggish Jobbik, Greece’s openly Nazi Golden Dawn, and Italy’s odious Northern League. Hatred of immigrants and Islamophobia are the glue that binds these parties, which are active and growing throughout the EU. 

Indeed, some on the British left have suggested voting against a Brexit precisely because the most vocal opposition to the EU comes from the most reactionary elements in the UK. The British Conservative Party is deeply split on the issue, with its most rightwing and anti-immigrant members favoring getting out. 

The left is also filled with crosscurrents. While some argue for getting out because they see the EU as an undemocratic vehicle for the expansion of international capital, others are critical, but advocate staying in. British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn—hardly a friend to international capital— opposes the Brexit. 

While Corbyn is deeply critical of the EU’s lack of “democratic accountability, “ and its push to “privatize public services,” he argues that there is a “strong socialist case” for staying in. Corbyn says the EU plays a positive role on climate change, and that exiting the EU would initiate a race to the bottom on issues like equal pay, work hours, vacations and maternity leave. The Scottish National Party, which is to the left of the Labour Party, also opposes a Brexit, and threatens to call for another independence referendum if it passes. 

Left parties in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland are critical of the EU, but most do not advocate withdrawing. What they are demanding is a say over their economic decisions and relief from the rigid rules that favor economies like Germany, and bar many others from ever becoming debt free. 

It is ironic that Germany—the country that refuses to even consider retiring some of the overwhelming debts that enchain countries like Greece—owes its current wealth to the 1951 London Conference that cut post-war Germany’s debt in half, lowered interest rates, and stretched out debt payments. The result was the “Wirtschaftwunder” [economic miracle] and the creation of an industrial juggernaut. Greece’s Syriza Party has long called for such a conference to deal with the EU countries mired in debt. 

There is no secret why Germany, France and the European Banks oppose debt reduction, or “haircuts”: Between the three of them they hold almost $84 billion of Greece’s debt 

The polls show the British electorate could go either way on a Brexit. What happens if they do leave is hardly clear, because it would be a first. The predictions range from doom and gloom to sunny days, and everything in between, although it is doubtful the EU would severely punish Europe’s second largest economy. 

One model the left needs to look at in this battle is Portugal, where three left parties, who have long fought with each other, found common ground around reversing the austerity policies that have racked the country’s economy for four years. Portugal just recently received a barely favorable bond rating that gives the coalition government some breathing room. The economy is growing and unemployment down, but at 129 percent of GDP, Portugal’s debt burden is still the third highest in Europe. 

Alone, Portugal is no match for power of the Troika, but Lisbon has allies in Spain, Greece, Ireland and increasingly, Italy. Support for the EU in Italy has gone from 73 percent in 2010 to 40 percent today. “Europe has taken the wrong road,” says Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. “Austerity alone is not enough.” 

Given the absence of a strong, continent-wide left, however, reversing the current economic rules of the EU may be a country-by-country battle. 

It is already underway, and for all of the economic power of the EU, the organization is vulnerable to charges that Brussels has sidelined democracy. 

If Brussels—read Germany—can be persuaded or forced to agree to debt reductions, to loosen the spending restrictions and start pump priming, Europe can do something about its horrendous unemployment rate and underperforming economies. If not, whether the British leave or not may be irrelevant: a house divided cannot stand for long. 

 

---

Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com 

 

 

 

 

report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended federal actions to “simultaneously decrease the cost of hearing aids, spur technology innovation and increase consumer choice options.” The Council suggested, for example, that the Food and Drug Administration permit a “basic” hearing aid, for mild to moderate age-related hearing loss, to be sold over the counter… something that every state prohibits.  

In May 2016 the Department of Justice published a Federal Register Notice that it will submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The proposed collection is titled Assessing the Potential Monetized Benefits of Captioning Web Content for Individuals Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. The intent is to solicit information from such persons about the perceived monetary value of captioning on Web sites. The Department is not suggesting that disabled people be asked to pay for captioning. It is merely soliciting information about the theoretical monetary value they place on captioning Web Content in order to help the Department quantify the benefits of captioning on Web sites. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies are encouraged. Comments will be accepted until July 11. 

Might this have something to do with senior citizens, hearing aids, and dementia and Alzheimer’s? You betcha. 

Closed captioning (CC) and subtitling are processes of displaying text on a TV, video screen, or other visual display to provide additional or interpretive information. Both are typically used as a transcription of the audio portion of a program as it occurs (either verbatim or in edited form), sometimes including descriptions of non-speech elements. Other uses have been to provide a textual alternative language translation of a presentation's primary audio language that is usually burned-in (or "open") to the video and unselectable.  

Subtitle is a transcription or translation of the dialogue when sound is available but not understood by the viewer (e.g., dialogue in a foreign language) or when sound is unavailable or not clearly audible (e.g., when audio is muted or the viewer is deaf or hard of hearing).  

The term "closed" (versus "open") indicates that the captions are not visible until activated by the viewer, usually via the remote control or menu option. On the other hand, "open” captions are visible to all viewers. 

Most of the world does not distinguish captions from subtitles. "Subtitles" assume the viewer can hear but cannot understand the language or accent, or the speech is not entirely clear, so they transcribe only dialogue and some on-screen text. "Captions" aim to describe to the deaf and hard of hearing all significant audio content -- spoken dialogue and non-speech information such as the identity of speakers and occasionally, their manner of speaking -- along with any significant music or sound effects using words or symbols.  

Closed captioning was first demonstrated in 1971 at a National Conference on Television for the Hearing Impaired. Regular open captioned broadcasts began on PBS's The French Chef in 1972.  

The National Captioning Institute was created in 1979 in order to get the cooperation of commercial television networks. 

The first use of regularly scheduled closed captioning on American television occurred in 1980. Sears had developed and sold the Telecaption adapter, a decoding unit that could be connected to a standard television set. Among the first programs seen with captioning was Masterpiece Theatre on PBS.  

In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ensured equal opportunity for persons with disabilities. The ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in public accommodations or commercial facilities. Title III of the ADA requires that public facilities - such as hospitals, bars, shopping centers and museums (but not movie theaters) - provide access to verbal information on televisions, films or slide shows. Ask: What about senior community centers and housing? 

Under the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990, television captioning was performed by a costly set-top box. Through discussions with the manufacturer it was established that the appropriate circuitry integrated into the television set would be less expensive than the stand-alone box. In January 1991, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enacted rules on implementation of Closed Captioning. It required all analog television receivers with screens of at least 13 inches or greater, either sold or manufactured, to have the ability to display closed captioning by July 1, 1993. 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded on the Decoder Circuity Act to place the same requirements on digital television receivers by July 1, 2002. All TV programming distributors in the U.S. are required to provide closed captions for Spanish language video programming as of January 1, 2010. 

H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, was passed by the United States House of Representatives in July 2010. A similar bill with the same name was passed by the Senate in August 2010 and signed by President Obama in October. The Act requires, in part, for ATSC-decoding set-top box remotes to have a button to turn on or off the closed captioning in the output signal. It also requires broadcasters to provide captioning for television programs redistributed on the Internet. 

On February 20, 2014, the FCC unanimously approved the implementation of quality standards for closed captioning, addressing accuracy, timing, completeness, and placement. This is the first time the FCC has addressed quality issues in captions. 

Closed captions were created for deaf or hard of hearing individuals to assist in comprehension. They can also be used as a tool by those learning to read, learning to speak a non-native language, or in an environment where the audio is difficult to hear or is intentionally muted. Captions can also be used by viewers who simply wish to read a transcript along with the program audio. 

In the United States, the National Captioning Institute noted that English as a foreign or second language (ESL) learners were the largest group buying decoders in the late 1980s and early 1990s, before built-in decoders became a standard feature of US television sets. This suggested that the largest audience of closed captioning was people whose native language was not English.  

For older televisions, a set-top box or other decoder is usually required. In the U.S., since the passage of the Television Decoder Circuitry Act, manufacturers of most television receivers sold have been required to include closed captioning display capability.  

The Food and Drug Administration, acting on recommendations by the President’s council, will host a public workshop next month to consider whether its hearing aid regulations “may hinder innovation, reduce competition and lead to increased cost and reduced use.” The agency has also reopened public comments on proposed regulation of so-called personal sound amplification products and their marketing. 

 

Hearing loss is a disability  

Dr. Christine Cassel, one of the authors of a recent JAMA editorial on hearing health policies, reports that Congress banned Medicare coverage of hearing aids 50 years ago because “people thought hearing loss was just a normal part of aging. … They didn’t see it as a disability or a medical problem.” But however normal, hearing loss can have significant consequences. A Finnish study reports older adults with poor hearing experiencing a greater number of falls than those with normal hearing. American researchers have demonstrated a similar association in those aged 40 to 69. And older adults with hearing loss are also more apt to report periods of poor physical and mental health and to be hospitalized. 

Studies also show a relationship between hearing loss — mild, moderate, or severe — and accelerated rates of cognitive decline.  

Aging ears affect many other aspects of our health. Otolaryngologist and epidemiologist Dr. Frank Lin points to several possible causes. With diminished hearing, “your brain is constantly having to work harder to process garbled sounds” — a concept called cognitive load — and may have less capacity for other mental tasks. 

In every other aspect of our lives, advances in electronic technology have made things cost much, much less. That has not happened with hearing aids. 

Hearing loss is a disability. Currently untreated in about 85% of those affected, it may be the nation's most damaging and costly sensory handicap. It is often not obvious to others or even to those who have it. Its onset is usually insidious, gradually worsening over years. 

Many of those affected can still hear sounds and think the real problem is that people are not speaking clearly. They often ask others to speak up, repeat what was said or speak slowly. Or they pretend they can hear, but their conversations may be filled with non sequiturs. When I can’t see a mouth, I respond with my address instead of my date of birth.  

Social isolation has been linked to depression and an increased risk of death from conditions like heart disease. Another major risk associated with hearing problems is dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Older people with hearing loss are more likely than those with normal hearing to develop dementia. 

This finding alone should prompt more people to get their hearing tested and, if found impaired, get properly fitted with aids that can help to keep them cognitively engaged. Perhaps it will also grab the attention of politicians who determine what is and what is not covered by Medicare and, in turn, by other health insurers. What have your candidates committed to? 

The hearing aid itself represents only about a third of what audiologists charge. (Medicare does cover testing with a physician’s referral.) Medicare does not pay for hearing aids, and many older people cannot afford thousands of dollars that quality aids and auditory training can cost. Last year, Representative Debbie Dingell (Democrat/ Michigan), with six Democratic co-sponsors, tried to pass legislation to remove Medicare’s hearing aid restriction. The bill stalled in committee.  

Furthermore, for the fewer than 15% of hearing-impaired people who have hearing aids, the devices themselves are not an adequate solution. Hearing aids work best when the distance between the sound and the listener is less than six feet and when background noise is minimal, which can preclude clear communication in theaters, airports, restaurants and many other social settingsPeople are most likely to notice communication problems when their hearing loss exceeds 25 decibels. It's not that they can't hear, but they can't understand. Hearing loss at this level affects the clarity of words. 

Although hearing impairment was first linked in major medical journals to dementia and cognitive dysfunction more than 20 years ago, not until last year did researchers demonstrate an independent association with dementia over time. By following 639 people ages 36 to 90 for nearly 12 years, Dr. Lin and his Johns Hopkins University and National Institute on Aging colleagues showed a direct relationship between the participants' degree of hearing loss and their risk of later developing dementia or Alzheimer's disease. 

xxx 

Go fish (but not in the Bay!) Eating a meal of seafood or other foods containing omega-3 fatty acids at least once a week may protect against age-related memory loss and thinking problems in older people, according to a team of researchers at Rush University Medical Center and Wageningen University in the Netherlands. Their research findings were published in the May 4 online issue of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology. The age-related memory loss and thinking problems of participants in the study who reported eating seafood less than once a week declined more rapidly compared to those who ate at least one seafood meal per week. While cognitive abilities naturally decline as part of the normal aging process, there is something that we can do to mitigate this process," says Martha Clare Morris, ScD, a Rush nutritional epidemiologist and senior author of the paper. 

Seafood is the direct nutrient source of a type of omega-3 fatty acid (docosahexaenoic acid) that is the main structural component of the brain. While epidemiologic studies have shown the importance of seafood and omega-3 fatty acids in preventing dementia, few prior studies have examined their associations with specific types of cognitive ability. 

Further, the protective association of seafood was even stronger among individuals with a common genotype (APOE-ε4) that increases the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. The APOE is a gene involved in cholesterol transport to neurons. About 20% of the population carries the APOE-ε4 gene, although not everyone who has the gene will develop Alzheimer's disease.  

xxx 

Recommended reading:

“A push for less expensive hearing aids,” by Paula Span. March 14, 2016 New York Times. See also The New Old Age, March 11, 2016.  

“Personal health: lifelines for people with hearing loss” by Jane E. Brody. January 17, 2012 New York Times. 

Having a disability entails more difficulties than merely posing an obstacle to employment. In the case of a psychiatric illness, most areas of life are affected. Mental illness and being medicated make a number of things harder.  

For example, we can get a relapse, and this includes those who are compliant. Medication compliance doesn't guarantee that we won't return to the hospital. A traumatic event, or a series of events, can destabilize someone with mental illness. Or, a relapse can happen for no discernable reason.  

Once hospitalized, meds may get readjusted due to changes in the brain that might necessitate an increase or decrease in medication, eliminating or adding one type of medication, or adjusting dosages. Stressors can potentially be identified and strategies can be learned to deal with them--or a person's living situation may need to be changed. 

The above assumes that mental health treatment is at its best, rather than merely being an assembly line in which people are admitted, medicated, and released, without accomplishing much. Due to budgetary cuts and the increasing number of ill people who need attention, the latter may occur far too often.  

Employment is harder, especially at a physical type job; psychiatric medication makes it physically harder to move the body. Paranoia interferes with work, and paranoia doesn't entirely go away for people with schizophrenia, even while medicated. We have less physical and mental energy compared to an unimpaired, non-medicated person, and we are more vulnerable on a number of levels. Many with mental illness become acutely ill because of trying to work at a job that is too demanding.  

Difficulty with employment causes financial difficulty. We are left trying to live on Social Security, and this puts most of us below the poverty line. Financial difficulty then becomes difficulty with housing as well as food and transportation.  

It is harder for many persons with mental illness to do something as simple as brushing teeth, or eating right. Numerous persons with mental illness have lost some or all of their teeth. Many are obese. Psych medications can cause rapid and extreme weight gain. This adds additional illnesses, which means additional appointments with doctors, medical procedures, and additional medications to treat medication-induced or weight induced health problems. More medications can then worsen health, even though I am not recommending going off meds. 

Most people with mental illness have a steady stream of appointments. Many have multiple health problems when we get a little older, caused by medication, or caused by the stresses of the condition. 

Not having enough money to live on and living in stressful housing situations are two factors that can be a constant source of suffering and instability for persons who already have a disabling level of mental illness. Being in a bad, codependent, or abusive relationship, or having a series of such relationships, is another source of stress, suffering, and instability. Yet not having a relationship can also be a source of stress, due to a continuous lack of fulfillment.  

In housing situations that are semi-institutional, such as those set aside for disabled people, harassment by neighbors can be a problem. In other low cost, low income housing, you might have to deal with a slumlord who allows problematic tenants into your building--some can be bullies, can have wild parties, or might use intentional intimidation and psychological warfare--or they might be just plain violent.  

In some instances, disabled people are subject to intimidation by the government. Social Security, when they do reviews of income, attempt to frighten beneficiaries into fessing up if their mom bought groceries for them. The Section 8 Housing Authority here in Contra Costa conducts interviews within a booth that has a one way glass on one side so that they can observe, and, on the other side of the booth, has a door with a latch on the outside that can be used to lock a person in. Inspections of rented units are often conducted by gigantic, mean men.  

Economic deprivation, health problems, relationship problems, housing problems, often owning a vehicle in constant need of repairs or owning no vehicle, and the intolerant attitude of society are all things most people with psychiatric disabilities must face. And there is probably more that I haven't thought of.  

Persons with mental illness are challenged enough and sometimes daunted by merely getting out of bed every day, getting dressed, taking medication, and doing whatever routine we currently have. Many of us are trying to make things better for ourselves. It is worthwhile to try to do this, even if it appears that the cards are stacked against us.  

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has refused to release his tax returns, saying “It’s none of your business” and “there’s nothing to learn.” Of course, there is something to learn from the recent tax returns of a supposed billionaire who seeks to gain the trust of American voters. If we had access to Trump’s returns we’d learn Donald’s top ten tax tricks. 

In 2011, when Trump was leading the “birther” movement, he promised to release his tax returns if President Obama showed his long-from birth certificate; Obama did but Donald backed off. Earlier, Trump had released his tax returns to obtain casino licenses in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In July of 2015, and on May 17th, he complied with the Federal Election Commission requirements and released a financial disclosure report, claiming it showed assets “in excess of 10 billion dollars.” But not his returns. 

Donald turned reticent because he doesn’t want to give away his top ten tax tricks. 

10. Don’t make charitable donations: A Federal tax return is more detailed than the FEC financial disclosure report because the return reveals how much you gave to charity. In 2011, Mitt Romney’s return showed that he gave about $2.3 million to charity. (Romney has chided Trump for not releasing his tax returns suggesting, “we can only assume it’s a bombshell of unusual size.”) 

The Washington Post reported that despite Trump’s claims that he had given $102 million to charity in the past five years, their investigation found that none of these gifts involved money, usually free rounds of golf. 

In 2008, Barack Obama’s tax returns showed his donations to Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Trump is a Presbyterian who attends Manhattan’s Marble Collegiate church. His tax returns would show if he donated to the Presbyterians. 

9. Pay no taxes: Trump boasts, “I pay as little as possible [in taxes].” 

Every year the IRS posts the aggregate figures on the richest 400 returns: income greater than $100 million; average tax rate 22.89 percent. In 2011, Mitt Romney had a tax rate of 14.1 percent. In 2014, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s rate was 35.7 Percent. 

8. Employ tax loopholes. Trump boasts, “I use every single [tax trick].” 

Writing in “The Atlantic” David Graham observed, “Trump has a long history of questionable finances. 

7. Move money offshore. Trump denies having a Swiss or offshore bank account. Nonetheless, CBS news reported that he holds stock in many companies that have stashed billions of dollars in offshore accounts. It’s not apparent from Trump’s financial disclosure form if he actually has an offshore account; but’s it’s a common practice for complex partnerships, such as Trump’s, to have such accounts. 

6. Manufacture goods overseas. Trump pushes products made in the US. However the Washington Post reported that Trump’s clothing line is made in “Bangladesh, China, Honduras, and other low wage countries.” 

5. Invest overseas. Forbes noted: “While bashing companies for investing in foreign countries… a significant percentage of [Trump’s] company’s hotels and major real estate properties are located abroad;” including Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, Dubai, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Philippines, Qatar, South Korea, Turkey, United Arab Emigrates, and Uruguay. 

4. Do business with Muslims. If he became president, Trump would ban Muslims from entering the US. Nonetheless, the Washington Post noted, “Trump makes an awful lot of money from an awful lot of people he'd rather keep from entering the United States;” he has businesses in countries with large Muslim populations such as Indonesia, India, and Turkey. 

3.Don’t question your partners. On February 28th, Senator Ted Cruz said, “There have been multiple media reports about Donald’s business dealings with the mob, with the mafia. Maybe his [tax returns] show those business dealings are a lot more extensive than has been reported.” Politifact said, “Cruz’s statement is accurate. Media reports have linked Trump to mafia bosses and mob-connected business associates for decades.” 

2. Boast about your income, but not to the IRS. In July, the Wall Street Journal studied Trump’s July filing with the Federal Election Commission and concluded Donald’s 2014 income was between $456-543 million. This would place him among the richest 400 Americans. 

Nonetheless, clever investigative reporting suggests Trump’s reported income may be less than $500,000. 

1. Inflate your assets, but not to the IRS. The Wall Street Journal concluded, “Trump has assets worth at least $1.5 billion.” Trump claimed $10 billion. 

The Washington Post observed: 

Trump is highly sensitive about suggestions that he is not as wealthy as he claims. He sued Timothy O’Brien, author of the 2005 book “TrumpNation,” because O’Brien calculated that Trump was not worth the billions that he claimed. (O’Brien concluded Trump was worth just $150 million to $250 million.) As part of discovery in the libel lawsuit, Trump had to turn over his tax returns. Trump lost the case.

 

Blasting Trump for not releasing his tax returns, Mitt Romney said: "it is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service." 

---

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

 

The Dazzling Divas, Pamela Connelly, Kathleen Moss and Eliza O’Malley, light up the hall on Wednesday at Le Bateau Ivre on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley with arias, duets and trios from celebrated operas of Puccini, Verdi, Bellini, Bizet, Delibes and more. Come indulge yourself in a dazzling evening of opera’s top hits with these Bay Area favorites. 

Le Bateau Ivre, at 2629 Telegraph Avenue , Berkeley, offers delicious dinners, desserts, and beverages of all kinds. Please bring a friend and join us for an intimate evening of enjoyable music. Looking forward to seeing you all here. 

* DINNER SEATING: Begins at 5:00pm * PERFORMANCE: 7:00 - 9:00pm - No Cover Charge. Come early for a nice seat. 

* For more information about the restaurant visit our website: * We also publish a calendar of our upcoming music events: * NEW! We also have started updates on our TWITTER! http://twitter.com/thedrunkenboat * Please add us as your Twitter friend and see the latest music events and happenings at Le Bateau

Two chamber concerts of interest this coming week: 

Berkeley Chamber Performances will present the Telegraph Quartet on Tuesday at the Berkeley City Club Ballroom, 2315 Durant, between Ellsworth & Dana. 

The program will be Beethoven's Quartet in E minor, Opus 59,No. 2, the "Razumovsky" Quartet (1806), the darkest, most exotic of the three Opus 59 quartets; Benjamin Britten's Three Divertimenti (Go play, boy, play--1933) & Leon Kircher's String Quartet No. 1 (1949). 

The Telegraph Quartet is Eric Chin & Joseph Maille, violins; Pei-Ling Lin, viola; and Jeremiah Shaw, cello. 

Following the concert there will be a complimentary wine & cheese reception with a chance to meet and speak with the artists. 

Tickets: $30 general; high school students, free; post-high school students, $ $15. 525-5211; www.berkeleychamberperform.org 

The Peregrine Quartet, sponsored by the Palomarin Foundation, will play Beethoven's Quartet in A minor, Opus 132 in five movements (1825) and Brahms' Quartet in C minor, Opus 51, No. 1 (1865-70), Friday, May 27, at 8 p. m., at the Unitarian-Universalist Church of Berkley, 1 Lawson Road, Kensington. 

The Peregrine Quarte is Tammie Dyer & Tingting Gu, violins; Alexander Volonts, viola; & Burke Schuchmann, cello. 

Tickets: $25. 234-4502; email: palomarin.music@gmail.com

John O'Keefe--writer, performer, one of the mainstays of Berkeley's Blake Street Hawkeyes from the 70s--will be performing his story "The Sequined Lady" this Saturday night at 8 as a living room performance in the home of Pam & Phil Clevenger in San Francisco, the second in a series of salon performances the Clevengers are hosting. 

There's no admission charge; a hat will be passed at the end of the evening. More information & reservations on the Facebook events page "Living Room Performance by John O'Keefe" ( https://www.facebook.org/events/10957415674679/ ) 

O'Keefe's been performing "The Sequined Lady" over the past few years--he calls it "my 'Ulysses,' My 'Divine Comedy,' a journey both metaphysical and material." Performed by O'Keefe with great élan, it's the first-person story of a man in his 70s who decides to cash out his bank account and ship out, emulating his father, but first see "the legenday bipolar stripper, Tiffany," to ask her for a private dance to "bless the journey." While walking down Market Street, he sees how the city's transformed from the old Barbary Coast of sailor's lore into a harder, colder place, as he thinks of his past, of life with and without his long-dead mother, and what his life's become.  

(I've seen "Sequined Lady" twice, last summer in an artist's studio in Marin, and two weeks ago at the Exit Theatre in downtown San Francisco, produced by Footloose Productions. There was no real sense of repetition; each show was unique, the second time just another experience of something familiar. With spareness, an economy of means, out of which a torrent of language, perception, emotion and humor can flow--almost erupt!--O'Keefe held the audience in thrall both times with his fantastic evocation of reality from the inside OUT ... He's a true raconteur, but does more than talk about something--he shows it to you. Up close ... )

The San Francisco International Arts Festival opened its annual run last Thursday at Fort Mason on the city's northern waterfront and will continue, Wednesdays through Sundays, through June 5, hosting a plethora of performing arts companies, solo artists and installations from here, there and everywhere--including a few notable East Bay participants. 

This weekend, the shows with participation by East Bay artists and producers include Aqua Clara Flamenco; Adrian Arias' 'When Fire Visits Us (Dream Two); Fandango-Pandango (a celebration of musical connections between the Philippines, Mexico, Cuba and Spain, with Potaje, Cascando de Flores and Fandangueros); Theatre Movement International's 'Homecoming (a Chiricahua Apache Odyssey'--conceptualized is father, Nigerian musician/bandleader by Rudradeep Chakrabarti of Berkeley; and (Sunday only) Avotcja & Modùpue, just announcing the participation of jazz singer Kalil Wilson and his father, Nigerian musician/bandleader Baba Ken Okulolo. 

(And more coverage will follow, including of Berkeley's Inferno Theatre, performing founder Guilio Peronne's ongoing series of plays, 'Quantum Love,' the brilliant second part of which was just previewed at their always-refreshing Diasporas Festival at the South Berkeley Community Church a couple of weekends ago, and will premiere at the SF International Arts Festival next week.) 

Further info & an excellent calendar of events with links to info & bios of the artists at: sfiaf.org

Monday, May 23, 10:00 am – 12:00 noon, Civic Arts Commission, 2180 Milvia St, Redwood-Sequoia Rm, 6^th Floor, Choosing a Consultant for Berkeley’s Cultural Plan Update Panel

Tuesday, May 24, 5:30 – 6:45 pm, Berkeley City Council, 1231 Addison St, Please enter at 1222 University Ave, City Council Referral Prioritization Process, Agenda: http://records.cityofberkeley.info/Agenda/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=220&doctype=1

Tuesday, May 24, 6:45 - 7:00 pm, Berkeley Joint Powers Financing Authority, 1231 Addison St, Please enter at 1222 University Ave, Agenda:

http://records.cityofberkeley.info/Agenda/Documents/ViewDocument/Agenda.pdf?meetingId=218&documentType=Agenda&itemId=undefined&publishId=undefined&isSection=false

Tuesday, May 24, 7:00 – 11:00 pm, Berkeley City Council, 1231 Addison St, Please enter at 1222 University Ave, Proclamation Celebrate Pepper Spray Times 25 years, Berkeley World Music Festival – 13^th year, Ballot initiatives, Revolving door initiative – (one year not long enough) Appeal 2556 Telegraph – the Village, agenda: http://records.cityofberkeley.info/Agenda/Documents/ViewDocument/Agenda.pdf?meetingId=185&documentType=Agenda&itemId=undefined&publishId=undefined&isSection=false

Wednesday, May 25, 6:30 – 11:00 pm (usually over by 8:00 pm) Energy Commission, 1901 Hearst Ave, North Berkeley Senior Center.

Thursday, May 26, 7:00 – 11:30 pm, Zoning Adjustments Board, 2134 MLK Jr. Way, City Council Chambers, On Consent Calendar: 3271 Adeline St – Habitot, 2002 Addison – convert 2^nd floor commercial space to 6 dwelling units, 3000 Telegraph allow instructional tasting wine, beer, spirits in grocery, Action Calendar: 2129 Shattuck Ave, Center St Hotel, staff recommendation to approve,

Agenda: http://records.cityofberkeley.info/Agenda/Documents/ViewDocument/Agenda.pdf?meetingId=185&documentType=Agenda&itemId=undefined&publishId=undefined&isSection=false

Thursday, May 26, Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association Annual Membership Meeting and Awards Presentation, The Hillside Club, 2286 Cedar

6:30 Social Hour, 7:00 Buffet Dinner, 7:30 Business Meeting and Election, 8:00 Awards

http://berkeleyheritage.com/calendar.html

Friday, May 27 – May 30, no scheduled meetings, long Memorial Day weekend.

Tuesday, May 31, City Council back in session.
 

---

Update on the Harold Way lawsuit: The trial is scheduled for August 26, 2:00 pm in Department 24, Alameda Superior Court Administration Building, 1221 Oak Street, Oakland. You will not be seeing Kelly at City meetings until the trial is over. Right now the petitioners Kelly Hammargren and James Hendry are working on the Briefs which are due July 8. The Administrative Record to be reviewed to prepare the briefs is around 15,000 pages.

How you can help: Please contribute to Landmark Legal Action, PO Box 12111, Berkeley 94712 or use PayPal www.landmarklegalaction.com Please attend City meetings, boards and commissions. We need a watchful eye on the city actions so we can make a difference in the November elections.