Full Text

Carol Denney
 

News

ZAB hearing tonight on the change of use proposed for 2777 Shattuck by Berkeley Honda

Marianne Sluis
Thursday June 09, 2016 - 03:31:00 PM

I am one of a large group of South Shattuck neighbors strongly opposed to Berkeley Honda’s proposed change of use to “auto sales” at 2777 Shattuck. I am also an advocate for zoning regulations and land use decisions that are consistent, predictable, and protective—ones that further General Plan and Area Plan goals instead of thwarting them.

Berkeley Honda is proposing the first change of use to “auto sales” in the Commercial-South Area (C-SA) District since 1990, when the City prohibited new and relocated auto sales in a step toward implementing South Berkeley Area Plan policies and goals. This prohibition was reversed in 2013 at the request of three auto dealers. 

One commercial auto use restriction has not changed: C-SA District zoning still prohibits a change of use to auto repair and parts service as the primary use of a building, allowing this use only if it is “ancillary” to auto sales: a use that is both dependent on and commonly associated with the principal permitted use of a lot and/or building and that does not result in greater or different impacts than the principal use (BMC 23F.04.010). 

 

BMC 23E.52.030.C: The initial establishment or change of use of floor area of an existing non-residential building, or portion of building, shall be subject to the permit requirements as listed in the legend of Table 23E.52.030. 

Most districts that allow auto uses (M, C-W, C-1) also permit auto repair as a primary use. Others, like the MU-LI and MU-R Districts, prohibit auto sales but allow repair. Only the C-SA District allows auto sales but prohibits a change of use to repair and parts service as the primary use. 

The repair and parts service use proposed by Berkeley Honda is in no way subordinate or ancillary to the sales use. It would be the prohibited primary use of 2777 Shattuck, and under the protections of the zoning ordinance, I am asking that you deny all use permits. 

Concord’s zoning ordinance states it plainly: “If a particular land use is identified as an example of one category but exhibits the characteristics of another, the use shall be categorized under the latter.” This is standard planning policy, meant to prevent a prohibited primary use from establishing itself under the guise of a permitted use. 

The repair and parts service use has established that it can operate independent of sales. 

a. Since November 2014, Berkeley Honda has conducted service/repair at 1500 San Pablo and new & used auto sales at 2627 Shattuck. Combining these uses in one building is a convenience, not a necessity. The dominant purpose for relocating to 2777 Shattuck was not the sales use, but Berkeley Honda’s failure to secure a long-term lease at 1500 San Pablo and pressure to find a new location for repair. In fact, Berkeley Honda would have to find yet another site for its used car sales, as they have stated that they are operating under a short-term lease at 2627 Shattuck. And contrary to numerous statements made by the applicant, state franchise law does not forbid dealerships from relocating within 10 miles of a rival franchisee. 

b. A banner at the former Berkeley Honda location announced, “We Service All Makes and Models: Honda, Volkswagen, Infiniti, Nissan, Lexus, Toyota, Mazda.” This auto repair and parts service is not dependent on the Honda sales component. 

c. The margin on new car sales is slim. Failing to meet sales expectations at this site, which the Honda corporation considers “inferior” due to its size and distance from the freeway, could make it more difficult for Berkeley Honda to get the best-selling models. There is a very real possibility that American Honda would merge the auto sales component with a larger dealership, leaving 2777 Shattuck as a prohibited repair service and parts facility. 

Berkeley Honda learned of a history of site contamination on the Adeline triangle and decided to use above-ground lighting and signage to avoid disturbing the soil. Since these design elements are among many that have not been reviewed by the Design Review Committee, it is not clear how effectively Berkeley Honda could promote new cars, or conduct business on the lot until 10:00 p.m. 

Different or greater impacts of the “ancillary” repair and parts service use: 

a. Honda proposes to move its indoor operations into a building of only 21,147 square feet (excluding the 2500 sq. ft. mezzanine). Its former building at 2600 Shattuck was 43,878 sq. ft., (excluding a mezzanine). Other than a veneer of sales/display use totaling 2,640 sq. ft and a portion of the 2,380 sq. ft. area designated for administrative use (restrooms and an employee lounge would be shared by both uses), the interior of 2777 Shattuck would be a 14-bay, 7-day, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. repair and parts service. This intensity of repair use concentrates noise, fumes, emissions, and increased traffic—all detriment of the “ancillary” operations—in an area zoned to provide lower-intensity community or neighborhood commercial uses that reduce auto impacts. There is no setback between this building and an R-2 property line. 

b. According to empirical evidence from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), auto repair and parts service generate significantly more trips than new car sales. While “full-service dealerships” are included under New Car Sales, the Berkeley Honda project does not conform to the suburban dealership model, which is the primary source for ITE trip counts. 

 

New Car Sales (841): 2.62 trips/ksf (per 1000 square feet) 

Automobile Parts and Service Center (943): 4.46 trips/ksf 

Automobile Parts Sales (843): 5.98 trips/ksf 

Berkeley Honda’s traffic study applied only New Car Sales trip counts. This does not provide a realistic assessment of the potential traffic impacts, most notably in peak a.m. hours, given the extraordinary intensification of repair and parts service use at 2777 Shattuck. 

c. Berkeley Honda would provide only 1 parking space per 1000 sq. ft. for all uses—half the number required by code for a change of use to Auto Sales. This was a Planning Department error, caught only a week prior to the ZAB hearing. Planning is allowing 14 driveway queuing spaces and service lifts to count toward the off-street parking requirement. Parking standards in the M District and in other cities reflect the greater impact auto repair will place on limited street parking in the area—particularly given the absence of floor space for post-service vehicle storage in the building. 

Berkeley’s Manufacturing District  

display floor area: 1 per 1000 sq. ft. 

2 per service bay 

Other gross floor area: 1 per 500 sq. ft. 

 

Albany  

auto sales & display, including outdoor display: 1 per 1000 sq. ft. 

vehicle repair: 1 per 300 sq. ft. 

neighborhood, regional, and community retail: 1 per 400 sq. ft. 

 

Concord  

indoor/outdoor sales area: 1 per 1000 sq. ft. 

2 spaces per service bay 

Other gross floor area: 1 per 250 sq. ft. 

When auto repair is primary use: 

4 spaces per service bay or 1 per 250 sq. ft. of floor area, whichever is greater. 

 

Hayward  

indoor storage: 1 per 1000 sq. ft. 

outdoor sales, display, or storage: 1 per 2000 sq. ft. 

repair or service: : 1 per 600 sq. ft. 

office, sales, and indoor display: 1 per 250 sq. ft. 

d. The proposed 4,427 sq. ft. addition, slated entirely for repair/parts uses, would eliminate 13 parking spaces from the portion of the Ward Street parking lot zoned C-SA and further intensify the prohibited primary use. The remaining spaces are on a residentially zoned (R-2) parcel, with conditions imposed by ZAB limiting its commercial use. 

e. All trips in and out of the new driveway abutting Kirala would be for the “ancillary” service and repair use. Accommodating this repair entrance would require removal of at least two on-street, metered parking spaces, a street tree, and a section of storefront window. The City would also abandon plans to add two parking spaces to the eastern side of the 2747 Adeline triangle, solely to allow traffic to pass drivers waiting to turn left across northbound Shattuck traffic and into the service entrance. 

 

With the addition of the new curb cut, Berkeley Honda would have 4 driveways associated with the service use. The two Shattuck driveways are near the Shattuck/Adeline intersection, dangerously close to pedestrian bulbouts which the City plans to install using Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program grant funds. 

In response to neighborhood concerns about the safety of local children on their way to and from LeConte Elementary and Willard Middle schools, the applicant statement claims that “Berkeley Honda’s move to this neighborhood will likely reduce the threat of car accidents to the children. This is based on an overall significant reduction in trip generation by the new uses.” 

No previous use at 2777 Shattuck opened before 9:00 a.m., so they had little or no impact on children walking or biking to LeConte Elementary School or Willard Middle School, which start at 8:00 a.m. and 8:40 a.m. respectively. Berkeley Honda, on the other hand, would open at 7:00 a.m. and operate a chaotic, multi-driveway repair and parts service use along a Safe Routes to School (SR2S) route. Berkeley Honda’s own traffic study shows that their business would generate more a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips than Any Mountain did. 

Infrastructure improvements on South Shattuck between Ward and Russell are ranked #11 out of 34 high-priority projects in the Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan. The Plan identifies numerous pedestrian hazards on Shattuck between Russell and Ward that Berkeley Honda’s mid-block repair and parts service entrance would duplicate or exacerbate, including: 

  • Southbound traffic on Shattuck merges from two lanes to one lane at Ward
  • Left turning vehicles on Shattuck northbound at Oregon (to enter Berkeley Bowl driveway) have no dedicated left turn lane, and cause through traffic to veer to right hand side of road over painted bulbout at the crosswalk.
  • High on-street parallel parking turnover, resulting in many vehicles pulling in and out of spaces along a congested corridor.
Pedestrian Design Guideline 4.10. Driveways in Appendix B of the Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan: “As a general guideline, minimizing the number of driveways improves pedestrian safety. As development allows, a goal should be reducing driveway widths and frequencies to the minimum required by the City of Berkeley’s standards.” 

AC Transit’s Designing for Transit guidelines advise minimizing the number of driveways onto key transit streets because they can “interfere with both bus operations and pedestrians.” With the addition of a pedestrian bulbout, Southbound #18 buses would not have room to clear the crosswalk and then veer right to pass cars and trucks waiting to turn into Honda’s service entrance. 

The #18 is one of 11 high-ridership bus routes in the AC Transit Major Corridors Study. AC Transit describes these routes as “the backbone of a frequent and reliable transit network.” A public process is currently underway to identify infrastructure improvements that will improve service and increase ridership. 

Emergency vehicles would also need to get through this new chokepoint on Shattuck between Ward and Stuart. 

Causing vehicles to swerve close to the curb is a hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists. Traffic Engineering has also indicated a willingness to shift the center striping on Shattuck east in order to accommodate Berkeley Honda’s left-turn needs, increasing risks to bicyclists on the narrowed northbound lane. 

Adding a curb cut and left-turn service entrance on a major bus and pedestrian corridor conflicts with numerous plans meant to increase safety for all users, promote transit equity, and reduce GHG emissions. These include: the Berkeley Complete Streets Policy (required by MTC and ACTC to qualify for transportation grant funding), the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy mandated by SB 375, high-priority Public Works projects slated for Shattuck from Russell to Ward in the Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan, policies of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans, the Berkeley Climate Action Plan, the AC Transit Major Corridors Study, and both the South Berkeley Area Plan and the South Shattuck Strategic Plan. It is also inconsistent with numerous “core” pedestrian and bike policies in the General Plan Transportation Element. 

f. Berkeley Honda’s 14-bay repair department would be open 7 days a week, from 7:00am until 10:00pm. Current service hours are M-F 7:30am-6:00pm; Sat 8-4; closed Sunday. Repair was not open on Sunday at 2600 Shattuck. 

(Sales hours have already increased: from 7:30-6:00 M-F; Sat 8:00-4:00; closed Sunday to M-F 7:00am-7:00pm; Sat 8-7; Sun 10-6.) 

The longer hours of the “ancillary” repair use would extend impacts—noise, vibration, exhaust fumes and emissions from the open service door, risks to pedestrians and bicyclists, parking shortages and traffic—well into the night and on weekends. Repair would operate during peak business hours for Kirala, a beloved restaurant and the only one in the area open at night. A ten percent drop in sales can cause a small business to go bankrupt. 

Other Berkeley auto repair services not only keep shorter weekday hours than Berkeley Honda proposes, but also close, or have limited hours, on Saturdays. No other Berkeley repair shops are open on Sundays—including those which were “grandfathered in” as legal nonconforming uses in the C-SA after the 1990 zoning change: 

McKevitt Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Service: M-F 7:00am-6:00pm; Sat 7-4: closed Sun 

McKevitt Fiat Service: M-F 7:00am-6:00pm; Sat 7-4; closed Sun  

Toyota of Berkeley (formerly in C-SA) Service: M-F 7:30am-6:00pm; Sat 8-4; closed Sun 

Dan Chin’s Auto Service: M-F 7:00am-6:00pm; closed Sat and Sun 

Model Garage: M-F 7:30-5:25; closed Sat and Sun 

Henry Chin’s Auto Care: M-F 7:30-6:00; closed Sat and Sun 

g. Berkeley Honda currently offers “Early/Late Hours Service,” allowing customers to drop off their cars. Parts deliveries in this industry are commonly made early in the morning, with the driver having keys to the building. Berkeley Honda claims trucks will deliver to the Adeline triangle and employees will walk the shipments across the street. The Ward Street parking lot, which has a door into the building, would be a tempting alternative. 

h. In 1999, representatives of three South Shattuck auto dealerships—Toyota of Berkeley, Jim Doten Honda (now Berkeley Honda) and McKevitt Volvo/Nissan—wrote a collective letter to the Berkeley Planning Commission/The General Plan Project, requesting zoning changes that would allow them to relocate to more industrial parts of West Berkeley. (The City granted their request in 2007.) “While our modern auto repair and service facilities are state-of-the-art and cause almost no emissions or other pollution, they may be best operated in an industrial area,” they wrote. (The letter also noted, “In 1990, a zoning revision resulting from the South Berkeley Area Plan prohibited new auto dealerships on South Shattuck and made the existing ones nonconforming uses.”) 

Bringing auto repair back to this area while intensifying its use is a complete reversal of City reasoning in 2005-2007, when removing auto sales and repair was presented as a way to further the goals of the C-SA District and the policies of the South Berkeley Area Plan. 

 

BMC 23A.08.010 The language of this Ordinance shall be interpreted liberally to promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. 

  1. In case of conflict between any of the provisions of this Ordinance, the most restrictive shall apply.
Please apply the protections in our Zoning Ordinance and deny both the change of use permit and the permit to construct a 4,427 sq. ft. addition to the building. Repair and parts service would be the prohibited primary use of 2777 Shattuck, and findings of non-detriment cannot be made under BMC 23B.32.040.A. Thank you for your service to the community. 

 

 


Police rescue girls from house on Oakland-Berkeley border believed to be connected to sex trafficking

Jeff Shuttleworth (BCN)
Thursday June 09, 2016 - 03:24:00 PM

Oakland police said today that they believe the kidnapping of a 14-year-old girl on Wednesday is connected to human sex trafficking and that they've arrested a second suspect in connection with the case.

Police also said that two additional teenage girls were rescued from the same house where the 14-year-old girl was found and rescued.

A witness alerted police at about 9:15 a.m. Wednesday that a man had grabbed a girl from the 1000 block of 65th Street.

Officer Johnna Watson said police shut down streets in the area with the help of Berkeley police and focused on a house near the corner of 65th and Herzog streets, where they found the 14-year-old girl and arrested a 21-year-old man just before noon. 

Watson said investigators who came to the house also rescued two other girls, one 15 years old and the other 16, and arrested a 22-year-old female suspect. The names of the two suspects weren't immediately available. 

The home where the girls were found and the suspects were arrested is near the Yu Ming Charter School at 1086 Alcatraz Ave., a K-8 school for Mandarin immersion education. 

Oakland police said their investigation into the kidnapping incident is continuing and anyone with information is asked to call the department's special victims section at (510) 238-3641.


Flash: Warning: Gas Leak on Durant

Berkeley Police
Thursday June 09, 2016 - 01:33:00 PM

UPDATE #2

Durant Avenue is now partially open for pedestrian traffic. The road will continue to be closed for vehicles while PG & E and EBMUD continue repairs.

UPDATE:

PG & E as well as the Berkeley Fire Department are currently handling the gas leak on the 2500 block of Durant Avenue. While the gas is dissipating, officers have closed Durant Avenue to vehicle traffic between Dana Street and Bowditch Street (the 2400 & 2500 blocks).

ORIGINAL

Durant Avenue between Telegraph Avenue and Bowditch Street has been evacuated and is closed to all pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Gas leak at 2526 Durant Ave. No current danger. BFD, BPD & PG&E is aware, actively correcting problem. Road closed on Durant AVE Btwn Telegraph Ave and Bowditch St. Please stay of this area. It will remain closed for several hours.


R.I.P. Mohammed Ali

Tejinder Uberoi
Tuesday June 07, 2016 - 12:52:00 PM

Cassius Clay, alias Muhammad Ali, the grandson of a slave provided a much needed voice for black people crushed by the scourge of racism. Blessed with good looks, fearsome boxing skills coupled with a swagger and a fast moving tongue he quickly became an icon in and out of the ring. Winning the gold medal in the Olympic Games in Rome in 1960 clinched his reputation as the greatest boxer in the world. 

Returning home to the deep south wearing his cherished gold, he was refused a meal at a local diner. Sting by such blatant racism he changed his ‘slave name’, Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali and embraced Islam. He soon became a vocal critic of U.S. actions at home and abroad. The FBI and National Security Agency soon began monitoring his communications. He refused to be drafted in the army and voiced his strong opposition to the war in Vietnam stating “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.” An enormous backlash followed and he was denounced as a traitor. He was stripped of his boxing title and sentenced to five years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000. In a gesture of extreme pettiness, the State Department confiscated his passport so he couldn’t fight abroad. But he never wavered and always stood his ground. May his soul “float like a butterfly” to his cherished Creator.


R.I.P. Mohammed Ali

Tejinder Uberoi
Tuesday June 07, 2016 - 12:52:00 PM

Cassius Clay, alias Muhammad Ali, the grandson of a slave provided a much needed voice for black people crushed by the scourge of racism. Blessed with good looks, fearsome boxing skills coupled with a swagger and a fast moving tongue he quickly became an icon in and out of the ring. Winning the gold medal in the Olympic Games in Rome in 1960 clinched his reputation as the greatest boxer in the world. 

Returning home to the deep south wearing his cherished gold, he was refused a meal at a local diner. Sting by such blatant racism he changed his ‘slave name’, Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali and embraced Islam. He soon became a vocal critic of U.S. actions at home and abroad. The FBI and National Security Agency soon began monitoring his communications. He refused to be drafted in the army and voiced his strong opposition to the war in Vietnam stating “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.” An enormous backlash followed and he was denounced as a traitor. He was stripped of his boxing title and sentenced to five years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000. In a gesture of extreme pettiness, the State Department confiscated his passport so he couldn’t fight abroad. But he never wavered and always stood his ground. May his soul “float like a butterfly” to his cherished Creator.


A letter to Berkeley's Zoning Adjustment Board about the auto dealership project proposed for 2777 Shattuck (Public Comment)

Kelly Hammargren
Tuesday June 07, 2016 - 12:47:00 PM

Unfortunately, I cannot be present at the ZAB hearing Thursday June 9, 2016 to comment in person.

The stated Berkeley goal and often repeated by members of this body is to decrease auto ownership, auto dependency, auto traffic and to support a pedestrian friendly city of residents who use transit. The proposal of locating the Honda dealership at 2777 Shattuck on a narrow congested section of Shattuck Avenue, backing up to residences is in direct conflict to creating a pedestrian friendly neighborhood and reducing auto traffic undermining stated goals, past and present planning.

Placement of an auto dealership at 2777 Shattuck, a location that is already congested with traffic to the popular Berkeley Bowl is detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Placement of any dealership in this location is detrimental to the community at large that travels along this section of Shattuck Avenue and/or frequents neighboring businesses.  

 

It should also be noted that the DRC Summary of the April 21, 2016 meeting is missing the comments by DRC members doubting the veracity of traffic study and conclusions. The supplemental traffic study completed after the April 21 meeting leaves much to question as to how a traffic study of Safeway near the intersection of College and Alcatraz is a reasonable choice to project traffic for the proposed Honda dealership. If a grocery is to be studied why was not the Berkeley Bowl which is approximately ½ block from the proposed project studied. 

The analysis of planned operation, traffic projections and conclusions do not comport with observations and experience and stated daily volume of 30-35 autos per day plus 1 to 2 tow trucks per day. 

· Customers arrange drop-off and pick-up around their personal work schedule which commonly places drop-off and pick-up during peak traffic hours. 

· Most dealerships provide courtesy transportation to customers generating trips in addition to drop-off for service. 

· Some dealerships provide or arrange for rental cars during auto service generating more auto trips for customers to and from the service center. 

· Parking is needed to hold cars before and after service work is completed until customer pick-up.  

Further, the supposed conditions of proximity to another dealership as reason to locate at 2777 Shattuck have never been validated, reviewed and/or made available to the public. 

ZAB must reject the proposed project for 2777 Shattuck Avenue and direct the Honda dealership to explore other locations. Surely, there are more suitable businesses for this site which will add to the vibrancy of the neighborhood without the detrimental impacts of the Honda dealership and still present reasonable profit for the property owner(s). 

It may be noted that while I am not a resident near the proposed project, I avoid this section of Shattuck Avenue due to the heavy traffic and congestion. Time is precious. If I can find the same products and/or services at another location which has easy access, I will travel to that location even if actual distance is further. For example, it is faster to travel to Berkeley Bowl West even though it is further from my home. 

On March 2, 2016, I did not have a choice, I had a meeting to attend on Shattuck Avenue. While in attendance at approximately 5:20 pm, my car which was parked on Shattuck Avenue north of Ashby not far from the proposed project was hit by an AC transit bus. Heavy traffic and congestion were factors. AC transit paid in full for the auto repairs and related costs. Still it is a reminder to avoid this congested area unless absolutely necessary. 

A non-detriment finding cannot be made and the project proposal must be denied in total. There is no satisfactory compromise. If approved, the unfortunate outcome is the neighborhood loses, the dealership is in a poor location and opportunity for vision and response to planning is lost. 

This entire project presentation lacks vision and represents short-sighted shuffling. 2777 Shattuck Avenue is a poor location choice and may well not bring the expected tax revenues to the City coffers. Approving this site for an auto dealership is all the more reason for potential customers to take their “buying” business elsewhere. There is no reason to fight Ashby and Shattuck traffic when “buying” will be so much more convenient and accessible elsewhere. Customers with autos can choose where to take their business. Internet searches make auto shopping for the best offers and choices possible. A myriad of desirable locations come to mind for auto shopping and purchasing.


Coastal Commission Documentary “Heroes of the Coast” Now Freely Available Online

Kendra Gonzales
Friday June 03, 2016 - 01:02:00 PM

Ventura, CA -- To commemorate the 40th anniversary of the California Coastal Act, Earth Alert has announced the online release of Heroes of the Coast: the Documentary. The free streaming film is available now at the Earth Alert home page, www.earthalert.org and can be seen below. 

“Posting Heroes of the Coast online makes it possible for all who love the California coast to understand how this fabled region has escaped rampant overdevelopment,” said Janet Bridgers, who wrote and produced the documentary. 

Prop. 20 established the California Coastal Commission (CCC). It qualified for the ballot in June 1972, thanks to the work of thousands of unpaid signature gatherers. It was the last initiative to so qualify, and passed by a significant margin (55%) of voters in November 1972, despite being hugely overspent by opposition that included utilities, energy companies and major land developers. 

The legislation was reauthorized by the legislature four years later, narrowly passing the Senate, thanks to last-minute pressure from Gov. Jerry Brown, who subsequently signed it into law. 

Bridgers explained that the 52-minute documentary was designed for use in classrooms and by coastal advocacy groups to educate those who are too young to remember the astounding political achievement behind one of the country’s strongest pieces of land use legislation. The film includes interview clips from many of those who made Prop. 20 happen, and are now deceased, including the late Peter Douglas, who was interviewed shortly before illness forced his retirement. It also explains the CCC appointment process from direct sources and cites the achievements of the law. 

“With the CCC so much in the news of late, we felt it was important to offer the documentary freely to a new generation on whom the task of coastal protection now falls,” added Bridgers. “Like federal environmental legislation passed in the early 70s, when bipartisan support for the environment existed, this legislation could never be passed now. It’s important to protect it.” 

The documentary is derived from the Heroes of the Coast historic archive of interviews with over 50 major coastal commission executive directors, commissioners and coastal activists. These have been posted to the Internet and transcribed, and are also available at www.earthalert.org. 

 


Opinion

Editorials

Time to plan to get out the vote

Becky O'Malley
Friday June 03, 2016 - 07:29:00 PM

Letters, letters, we do get letters! Time for what Herb Caen (or someone) used to call a Mailbag Column.

First, the important stuff:

Two letters from a couple of intelligent, well-read readers, better educated than I, asking me to tell them how to vote! Why me? I change my mind a lot.

Tim Redmond has revived the San Francisco Bay Guardian masthead just to continue its longstanding tradition of endorsements, and I value Tim’s opinions, so you should take a look at them on sfbg.com. I agree with the most controversial opinion noted on the site: No on Proposition AA. Its goals are good, but its mechanism just won’t work. It's regressive. Time to try again, and get it right this time.

But I do remember, back in the Dark Ages, when I was working in the newsroom of the old Bay Guardian the day endorsements were going to bed, and someone, maybe even the sainted Bruce Brugmann himself, hollered “Anyone know anyone in Marin?” The revived SFBG has the good sense not to endorse outside of The City, so we’re on our own in Alameda County.

One more time, for those of you who weren’t paying attention the first time and still haven’t voted: Harrison, Casalaina, Huen, Badelle: reform candidates for the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee. Pamela Drake if you live more down Oakland way, and you’ll have to read your own ballot to figure it out. None of the incumbents for this one. Why? Because the current DCC is Un-Democratic, and also because I say so. This is a small enough electorate that every vote really counts.

For State Senator: Sandré Swanson, like Shirley Chisholm Unbossed and Unbought. Loni Hancock did endorse him to fulfill a promise made when he agreed not to run against her in the last election, but he’s his own man, not a creature of the Hancock/ Bates set.

For U.S. Senator: Kamala Harris, one of us. Her major opponent expressed and hasn’t retracted a categorical opinion on Moslems that people like us just don’t approve of.

Assemblymember: Tony Thurmond, essentially unopposed and basically a good guy. But you do need to let him know what you think, because Jerry Brown’s ugly pro-developer sleeper bills are coming into Thurmond’s purview right now, and they could destroy local land use planning. Thurmond must be encouraged to oppose them.

President: You’re on your own on this one. I still haven’t made up my mind, because I agree with Sanders’ goals and increasingly deplore his campaign. A younger friend said to me last night that he likes Bernie but hates many of his supporters, and that resonated with me. Except, of course, that lots of them are my good friends. 

To give you an idea of what I mean, here’s what I’ve gotten from one guy who shall be nameless since his letter was addressed to me by name, and not to “opinion”: 

“What is with the constant attacks on Bernie Sanders? Ignoring our extreme difference on the Sanders v. Clinton issue, I thought the Daily Planet was supposed to be a progressive paper about local news and events. We seem to agree on the big issues in Berkeley politics, but your constant and unwarranted attacks on Sanders are such a turn-off I'm about to stop reading. Please stop it! “ My main point [is] that Daily Planet is supposed to be about local news. An article or column about national news once in a while is one thing, but you've gone way beyond that. “ You're supposed to be progressive, yet you constantly bash the by far most progressive candidate. 

“ You sent me a bunch of editorials claiming that Sanders is not progressive enough. If you agree with those editorials, you should hate Clinton even more, because she's far to the right of Sanders on every issue. 

“I really hope you don't let this Sanders bashing become an obsession. The Daily Planet is a good source for local news and I don't want to be forced to stop reading.” 

 

Well, first of all, the Daily Planet isn’t “supposed” to be about anything. At this point it’s nothing but one old lady with a few articulate friends and some high-end tech support, and all of us write about what we’re interested in, period. 

 

Second, the word I’d most like to retire at this point is “progressive”. (Second choice: “amazing”.) 

Those who know history remember that at one point “progressive” included racist eugenics, and at another point in the Eisenhower era it was touted as a benign alternative to the dreaded leftist “liberal”. 

Third, all politics is local. 

Around here we’re all progressives, aren’t we? And what does that mean? Not a whole lot. 

In Berkeley you can’t tell the progressives without a scorecard. 

I was listening to U.C.B. Prof. Robert Reich on the radio yesterday extolling Bernie Sanders on Michael Krasny’s show, and at the very same time my mail came, with a glossy postcard with Reich’s picture on it endorsing the candidate which the Democratic establishment (sometimes called The Machine) is running against Sandré Swanson. Professor Reich has a history since he’s moved to Berkeley of endorsing every single one of the candidates and issues favored by Perennial Mayor Tom Bates and his allies, who are not the most progressive kids on the block. But out of town Reich plays as more-progressive-than-thou. 

(Come to think of it, I had a pricey lunch once a number of years ago at chichi Chez Panisse, seated right between that very same Mayor and Senator Bernie, who was then in the habit of making trips to Northern California trolling for cash. Since his state has fewer voters than the Bay Area, I wondered then what he would be using the money for, but he was a “progressive icon” so no one asked why.) 

It’s confusing, and maybe it all comes down to memes (a fuzzy neologism ripe for retirement the day it was coined). Memishly speaking (an unborn coinage ripe for abortion), I have three daughters and three granddaughters, any one of whom would make a great president, and it would be a lot easier for that one if there had already been a woman president when she ran. 

And of course: President Voldemort, he whose name we dare not speak. 

Hillary Clinton has already won the Democratic nomination by vote of the people, despite naysayers on the lunatic fringe. It’s time now for Bernie and his bros and bots to lay off attacking her as a person—she’s the candidate, get over it—though they should certainly continue to espouse his “progressive programs” until the convention and beyond. 

(Not, of course, that any of those protracted platform fights which Democrats have always enjoyed have added up to a hill of beans any time in my long life. However…) 

And no harm done if anyone’s “forced to stop reading" this stuff. It’s worth what you pay for it, no more and no less. We won’t lose advertisers (since we have none) if we lose readers. Soon we should really find better things to do with our time anyway. 

Vote for whoever floats your boat, with my personal blessing. Our Berkeley votes for President on Tuesday matter not at all. 

What matters is what happens elsewhere, so we should be planning our get-out-the-vote excursions right now. I have friends, former Berkeleyans, in Virginia and North Carolina and Ohio, and they’d put you up I’m sure if you went there to work. And if not, there’s always phone-banking. 


The Editor's Back Fence

The November Campaign Commences

Saturday June 04, 2016 - 09:44:00 AM

Well, Councilmember Susan Wengraf is running for re-election and her campaign website is now online. We can't describe it for you--you really have to see it yourself, and don't forget to click on everything, especially the videos. Click on susanwengraf.com


Public Comment

New: Tree project divides environmentalists

Mary McAllister
Sunday June 05, 2016 - 01:51:00 PM

Plans to destroy hundreds of thousands of trees in the East Bay Hills have caused a deep rift among members of the Sierra Club.

The local Sierra Club leadership not only supports the project to destroy non-native trees—eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia—it has also sued the funding agency to demand 100% destruction of the trees instead of thinning as proposed by East Bay Regional Park District. However, many Sierra Club members oppose the plans.

Opponents plan a demonstration at noon on Monday, June 13, at the Sierra Club office in Oakland at 2100 Franklin Street at 21st Street.  

 

Though Club Chapter leaders call this a “restoration” project, it actually includes NO plans to re-plant the 2000-acre project. Once the trees are cut down, the project area will likely become overgrown with scrub and grass. Native trees such as redwood and oak will NOT be planted to replace the trees that are destroyed. Native trees cannot grow in most of the project area. The hills were virtually treeless before the arrival of Europeans. A recent study also reports that 3 million native oaks have been killed by Sudden Oak Death since 1995 and predicts the death of most of our oaks in California. 

Although the project is billed as a fire-safety plan, the project area will actually become LESS fire-safe. The trees will be chipped and left as a 2-foot deep layer of mulch that will dry out and become a fuel source for fires. Shrubs and grasses are more flammable than trees because they ignite more easily. Without trees to shade them and provide fog drip to keep them moist, the scrub and grasses will dry out, becoming even more flammable. The windbreak the trees provide will be lost, increasing dangerous wind-driven fires. The real reason behind the tree cutting is that the trees are not “native” and, in the opinion of the promoters of this project, don’t belong here. 

A world famous fire scientist with the US Forest Service says, of the 1991 fire in the East Bay, “…eliminating eucalyptus and replacing it with some other vegetation would not prevent future [Wildland-Urban] fire disasters because the problem was inappropriately defined as a eucalyptus vegetation problem and not a…home ignition zone problem.” 

The project will use thousands of gallons of toxic herbicides to keep the trees from re-sprouting. The San Francisco Bay Sierra Club leadership explicitly refuses to oppose herbicide use. They claim only minimal amounts of herbicides will be used. However, one of the project land owners has estimated it will use 2,250 gallons of herbicides on its section alone. 

This environmental disaster will release tons of carbon into the atmosphere as the trees, which fight climate change when alive, start to decay. The windbreak provided by the trees will be lost and erosion will occur as their roots decay. 

Many empirical studies document the rich biodiversity of the existing non-native forests. Bees, hummingbirds, and Monarch butterflies require eucalyptus trees during winter months when there are few other sources of nectar. Hawks and owls nest in the branches. 

California law enabled me to send a letter to members of the local Chapter of the Sierra Club to inform them of the Club’s support for these deforestation projects. Over 1,800 members returned postcard petitions expressing opposition to these projects and the use of pesticides on public land. Sierra Club bylaws obligate the Club to hold an official vote about their support for these projects. 

Please join us for a demonstration of our opposition to the Club’s position and to support our request for a vote of the membership to democratically determine the wishes of the members. We will meet on Monday, June 13th, at 2100 Franklin Street at 21st Street in Oakland at noon. For more information, please visit milliontrees.me

 


Mary McAllister lives in Oakland and is the webmaster of the Million Trees blog. 

 

 

 


Reply to letter of Jagjit Singh

Ronald Berman
Sunday June 05, 2016 - 11:50:00 AM

The Opinion of Jagjit Singh, as expressed in the Daily Planet on 6/3/16 is biased and omits several important issues. He blames everything on Israel, leaving out the key fact that the Palestinian charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. To quote just one of the several anti-Israel paragraphs in its charter: "and the establishment of Israel are illegal and null and void, regardless of the loss of time… This is why the Palestinian leadership is dragging its feet on pursuing a two state solution. They want both states to be Palestinian, with no Jewish state. And that just isn't going to happen. 

Mr. Singh leaves out the fact that the Palestinians tell their children to stab and kill innocent Israeli civilians, including men, women and children. They dig tunnels into Israeli territory so they can pop up and kill civilians. Yet, despite these actions, Israel has several times offered to meet directly with the Palestinian leadership over final status issues. But Abbas has not come to the table.


Venezuela's Collapse and the Deafening Silence of the Left

Pedro Lange-Churión
Friday June 03, 2016 - 01:31:00 PM

Venezuela is nearing collapse, turning more violent by the second.

Last week President Nicolás Maduro decreed a state of emergency and suspended constitutional rights. He fears “the Empire” is set to strike soon. This measure comes abruptly as the opposition demands the Venezuelan Electoral Panel to ratify the 1.8 million signatures collected in just a few hours as a first step to constitutionally call for a referendum to remove Maduro from power. And Maduro is looking for ways to delay this process.

An article in Counterpunch by Eric Draitser, characterizes the referendum as a coup orchestrated by the opposition to oust Maduro and destroy the legacy of Chávez revolution. It further argues that Venezuela’s economic situation, already a humanitarian crisis, is the product of a plot between the Venezuelan right-wing elites that control the National Assembly and U.S. imperial interests, comparing the current crisis in Venezuela with the overthrow of Allende in the seventies by Nixon, Kissinger, the CIA and the Chilean elites.

What Draister and others do not mention is that the referendum is a constitutional right pursued by an opposition whose control of the National Assembly (Venezuela’s congress) comes from a landslide electoral victory in December 2015. The article identifies the opposition with the right-wing elite, when in reality the opposition is a coalition of parties and individuals that also includes left and left-to-center ideological orientations. The President of the Assembly, for instance, Henry Ramos Allup, has been the Vice-President of the Socialist International. The article also conveniently omits Maduro’s coup to the National Assembly. On December 30, 2015 he tempestuously appointed twelve Supreme Court Justices, all Chavistas, as a way of invalidating any law passed by Venezuela’s elected legislative body, thus undermining the will of the Venezuelans who elected the members to the National Assembly. 

The left acts as if all “leftist” governments must be unconditionally defended, no matter how authoritarian and corrupt they become. In acting this way they hark back to the Stalinist days of unconditional allegiance to the party, or to the Cold War years when even timid critiques to the left—even within the left–produced knee-jerk attacks and excommunications. The left has failed to critique the current Venezuelan nightmare and when it has, it has done so timidly. It took Noam Chomsky ten years to realize that Chávez has become a dangerous authoritarian ruler who betrayed the grassroots movement born out of his initial emergence into the Venezuelan political scene. Slavoj Zizek is careful to remind us that Nicolás Maduro and Hugo Chávez are authoritarian “caudillos,” not be compared with Pablo Iglesias from Podemos or Alexis Tsipras from Syiriza. But Zizek is reluctant to use his critical acumen to shed light on how the current Venezuelan crisis is the result of policies enacted by these authoritarian caudillos. 

Venezuela was news while it was good news and while Chávez could be used as a banner for the left and his antics provided comic relief. But as soon as the country began to spiral towards ruination, and Chavismo began to resemble another Latin American authoritarian regime, better to turn a blind eye. 

The position of the Latin American left, then, has been either to suspend a critical stance, or not to address Venezuela’s situation at all. The left media is quick to condemn the coup to Dilma Rousseff orchestrated by the Brazilian opposition–as it should, or Macri’s neoliberal policies in Argentina poised to undo Peronista policies that produced an undeniable upward mobility in Argentina. But when Venezuela comes up the left intelligentsia draws a blank and changes the topic. As if critiquing and condemning an authoritarian nightmare, disguised under a leftist rhetoric, means condemning all leftist initiatives. At this point, a good dosage of self-criticism would be positive and constructive to a left in peril in Latin America. What leftist leaders and thinkers should have said and didn’t say (with the exception of José Mujica in Uruguay, who wrote a letter to Nicolás Maduro pleading to cease the brutal repression of peaceful protests), was that Venezuela cannot be an example of a successful leftist government, and it should therefore be held accountable. After all, Maduro can do more harm in Venezuela than Mauricio Macri in Argentina. Macri attempted to name by decree two Supreme Court Judges in mid-December and days later Judge Alejo Ramos Padilla issued an injunction blocking Marcri’s appointments. A few days later, Maduro appointed twelve Chavista judges to Venezuela’s Supreme Court. His decision, of course, was challenged by the National Assembly, but to no avail. 

The default position on the left is to blame Venezuela’s dismal situation on American interventionism. To be sure, the U.S. did play a role in all of this. There was the attempted coup in 2002 led by a misguided opposition, with the support of the Bush administration and Aznar’s government in Spain; it didn’t last more than two days in power. But even then the U.S.did not have nearly as active a role as the hawkish U.S. interventions in the seventies, the one in Chile being, perhaps, the most infamous. 

The U.S. focus has since shifted to the Middle East. After the failed coup, the U.S. left Venezuela pretty much to its own devices, with a relative thawing of relations when Barack Obama came to power. Although in March 2015 Obama declared Venezuela a national security threat, providing the U.S. with the tools to block assets in the U.S. belonging to Venezuelan officials involved in corruption, implicated in drug trafficking and accused of violation of human rights. The U.S. selective justice notwithstanding, the truth is that the U.S has been relatively indifferent to Venezuela’s maladies since 2002 and Obama’s declaration has little impact in Venezuela’s internal affairs. This position is not, of course, motivated by a genuine respect for the country’s sovereignty. It has simply been more convenient and less costly to leave things as they are, as long as Venezuela continues to provide the U.S. with 17% of its oil production. Ironically, beyond the anti-imperialist rhetoric, the U.S. is and has been Venezuela’s first commercial partner throughout the Chavista experience, a completely different a situation from that of Cuba, besieged by an aggressive economic embargo. 

The business elites in Venezuela have been emasculated; many have left the country as their industries have been expropriated by the government. Since 2002 all branches of government have been impermeable to the influence of the U.S. and opposition, since they have been overwhelmingly made up of Chavistas. 

American intervention since 2002 has had little traction in Venezuela’s internal affairs. Therefore, the debacle of the country, its social decomposition, the emergence of Venezuela as a main port in drug trafficking, the demise of its middle class, the collapse of its economy, its scarcity of goods, its corruption, its health care crisis, and its alarming public safety record cannot be simply “dismissed” as a consequence of American interventionism. 

Many historians argue that Venezuela’s plight is the eternal recurrence of countries cursed and blessed by oil riches, that Venezuela has experienced civil unrest in the past, like “El caracazo” in February 1989. True. But never has Venezuela experienced a crisis of such proportions, never has the country been in such a generalized humanitarian crisis, never has its public safety record and its corruption been so dismal and unfettered. And as sound as these structural arguments are, it is important to realize that to a large extent this is a crisis created internally and, therefore, there are people in power who should be held accountable. 

Chavismo had a chance to do things differently, in ways which could have averted this current crisis. Save the hiccup of 2002, Chavismo has been in power for seventeen uninterrupted years, holding the reins of all branches of civic and military power. Chavismo has also enjoyed unprecedented oil revenues in the history of the country. Much of this wealth was grotesquely mismanaged, fueling extravagant subsidies that peaked in the countless and expensive elections organized to barely disguise the government’s authoritarian inclinations. The acts of corruption perpetrated by private officials and the military equals’ macro-economic cyphers: $300 billion disappeared in the last decade as the coffers of banks in Andorra, Switzerland, and other fiscal paradises, spill over with wealth stolen from Venezuelans. This cypher, by the way, was not provided by the opposition, but by Chavistas themselves, who have been with the “revolution” from its beginnings and who have played key roles in Chavez’ government. Jorge Giordani, an old communist who served as Minister of Economic Planning, was the first to blow the whistle and then other ministers joined, like Héctor Navarro and Ana Elisa Osorio, all in Chávez’ cabinet from 1999 through 2013. But nowhere does the left acknowledge these facts as contributing to the current crisis. 

In his unbounded paranoia, Chávez made sure to arm his militias (Círculos Bolivarianos) with sophisticated weapons. Caracas boasts the highest murder rate in the world. Twenty-five thousand Venezuelans are killed every year (an undeclared war) and these militias are ready to disrupt peaceful protests with violence, or work for the interests of rising drug lords inside and outside of government. Wary of perceived traitors to the revolution, Chávez reshuffled his increasingly smaller circle of aides to key posts in the government. Maduro followed his mentor. Anyone critical of his policies was expelled from his court; some were even imprisoned. Venezuelans remember General Raúl Isaías Baduel, Chávez’s Minister of Defense, a die-hard Chavista instrumental in restituting Chávez to power after the coup in 2002. As Chávez attempted to centralize more power, Baduel criticized his authoritarian tendencies. Baduel was arrested at gunpoint from his house and thrown in jail. 

The case of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni is better known internationally. In 2009, Chávez disagreed with one of her rulings and sentenced her to thirty-years in prison, a glaring violation of judiciary independence. Afiuni was placed in a prison with convicts she had previously sentenced. Fearing for her safety – inmates tried to burn her alive – human rights organizations lobbied for her release and 

Noam Chomsky finally wrote an open letter demanding her release and distancing himself from Chávez. She became sick with cancer and after emergency surgery was confined by house arrest. Evidence later emerged that during her detention she was brutally raped by guards and officials from the Ministry of Justice 

For years Venezuelans witnessed the same names play different roles in government, most of them deeply unqualified, and many belonging to the military. No wonder why all areas of the Venezuelan government and Venezuelan society are in chaos. 

To say that these maladies are caused by American interventionism and by oil wars in the international market, robs Venezuelans of agency and absolves them of the responsibility to reckon with their mistakes and the way they shaped the country’s current history. There are many oil rich countries in the world affected by the dip in oil prices orchestrated by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, but not one of these countries is going through the crisis that afflicts Venezuela these days. To reduce Venezuela’s situation to American interventionism ignores how the lived experience of most Venezuelans, affected by populist, impulsive and deeply narcissistic leaders like Chávez and Maduro, has become abysmal. These assertions ignore (or want to ignore) that Chávez expropriated close to seven thousand productive industries now in ruins, forcing the country to import with less money many of the goods it previously produced. These assertions ignore that Chavismo ruined PDVSA, Venezuela’s oil company, by appointing inept and corrupt managers that have used the company as a platform to launder cash; PDVSA’s productive capacity has diminished so drastically that the country with the largest proven reserves of oil in the world has to import oil to meet its demands; these assertions ignore that Chávez disregarded repeated warnings from his own economists urging him to curb spending, not to cap products with a price at the expense of the few producers still remaining in the country who were reluctant to produce at a loss, to which he arrogantly replied that oil would reach the $200/barrel mark by 2015. It is merely $38 per barrel now and production costs almost exceed revenues; these assertions ignore that people are dying in hospitals because medicines as basic as antibiotics cannot be found in Venezuela’s pharmacies, and hospitals and doctors have to rush through surgeries because water and electricity might run out at any moment, as it does daily. 

There is a humanitarian crisis in the country’s health systems (public and private), but Maduro refuses humanitarian aid stating it is hard to find a country with a better healthcare system than Venezuela. These assertions ignore that Venezuela has the most catastrophic economy in the world with a 700% inflation rate projected to reach 1200% as the country enters default in the third quarter of 2016. These assertions ignore the fact that both Chávez and Maduro feigned not to see how the drug business has permeated the highest spheres of power in the country, a reality now undeniable: the first lady’s nephews await trial in a New York City prison, after been arrested in Honduras for trying to push 800 kg of cocaine into the U.S., a cargo of cocaine that left Venezuela on a airplane that took off from the presidential ramp in Caracas’s airport. The litany is long and can’t be blamed on U.S. intervention alone. 

The left in Latin America has failed to criticize Chavismo, but the right has jumped to the opportunity. Right-wing politicians love to use Venezuela in their electoral campaigns or in their attempts to impeach leftist leaders, as a convenient example of what countries need to avoid. Why hasn’t the left exercised a sensible measure of self-criticism and offer a candid reflection on the Venezuelan case as a way of countering right-wing opportunism? 

In 2014, I attended the march celebrating Martin Luther King Day in Oakland. I met an old white American donning a cowboy hat and a t-shirt with a portrait of a radiant Chavez in the middle of the t-shirt and the PSUV logo (United Socialist Party of Venezuela). I asked him if he had been to Venezuela, he said no. He told me he was eighty-four years old. I told him I am Venezuelan and he mumbled with his thick American accent: “El pueblo unido jamás será vencido.” I asked him what he thought of Chávez. He said: “He tells it like it is” and referred with admiration of Chavez’ performance in 2006 at the United Nations where Chávez mockingly compared Bush to the devil. To me that was one more display of demagoguery from a man with a penchant for histrionics. It troubled me then that such performance would draw international support from people on the left. It was almost too easy. People seemed to relish in a South American leader who “tells is it like it is” (this is, by the way, what Trump supporters say of their candidate: “Trump tells it like it is”). 

What troubles me even more, in the face of Venezuela’s hopeless present, is that such uncritical sympathy for Chávez casts a veil over the fact that Venezuela’s current ruination is in large measure the consequence of his policies and his political solipsism. Sympathizers all over the world still try to redeem him and exonerate him from responsibility. 

“Maduro is not Chávez” I tire of hearing. And it is true, Maduro is not Chávez; he lacks Chávez’ charisma and political capital. But Maduro, in a more substantial way, is Chávez. Maduro has been in power for three years and what we reap right now in Venezuela was sown by Chávez’ policies during his fourteen years in power. Chávez was just lucky and died at the right moment. We shouldn’t forget that Chávez ran an election aware he was going to die – lying to Venezuelans about his health condition – and just before he left for Cuba as newly elected President, he pleaded with supporters to elect Nicolás Maduro in case he didn’t come back. And there you have it: Maduro is Chávez’s most tangible legacy as everything dissolves into violence and ruination. 

In the famous opening of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), Marx quotes Hegel’s affirmation, according to which historical events are first tragedy and then farce. I believe, in the carnival-esque logic of Venezuelan politics, the chapter written by Chavismo is simultaneously tragedy and farce. 


Pedro Lange-Churión is a professor at the University of San Francisco, California, where he teaches comparative literature, film and urban studies, with an emphasis on critical theory.


How fake is the housing debate? Pretty fake.

Thomas Lord
Friday June 03, 2016 - 12:51:00 PM

You hear a lot of political talk about housing these days and what kinds of policies we need to fix the housing crisis. Nevermind that there's no widely agreed upon definition of what the crisis is, our politicians see a chance to fix something and fix they shall. That's why we call them fixers. And boy, the fix is in. 

In situations like this, everyone in politics has a chance to advance their pet agendas, reward friends, and punish enemies. The only catch is that they need the public to not pay too close attention to what they're saying. Fortunately for those politicians, a compliant press stands ready to help. 

The headline on East Bay Express' daily news blog crows: 

"UC Berkeley Report: Affordable Housing is Best Way to Combat Gentrification" (Darwin BondGraham, 5/27) 

The article discusses a recent report from UC Berkeley researchers Miriam Zuk and Karen Chapple who have previously been called upon to lend City Council proceedings an air of academic respectability. 

It's a compelling story. BondGraham leads off 

"According to a new report by UC Berkeley researchers, the best way to prevent gentrification and displacement is to build affordable housing in cities and neighborhoods where rents and home prices are rising fastest." (Darwin BondGraham, 5/27) 

Amazing! In fact, that's exactly what the nine pro-development members of the council want to hear! It's also perfect for the goals of the pro-development Rent Board progressives! 

For some on council, the story means we should build more market rate housing to get in-lieu fees to build affordable housing. For the rent board and some on council, the article means we should regressively tax rents in order to get more money to give to developers in hopes they'll build affordable housing. 

Sounds great, right? 

One small problem. Zuk and Chappel, those UC academics who wrote the research briefing, proved nearly the opposite. 

The headline is false. The article's lead is false. It's just plain wrong. Building more affordable housing is a lousy strategy for preventing gentrification. 

Let's take a look: 

Living people, real communities, gentrification, and displacement 

I claim -- hopefully uncontroversially -- that if you talk with people who identify themselves as suffering the ill effects of gentrification, they will speak about a range of issues such as: 

* The loss of businesses that were traditionally community-serving such as a neighborhood-favorite used bike shop being replaced by a pricey restaurant. 

* Rapid inflation such as $3 dollar breakfast being replaced by $4 coffee. 

* The diminishment of amenities such as the disruption of a multi-generational tradition of pick-up soccer at a play area at Delores Park. 

* Neighbors moving out. 

* In-migration of people who are stand-offish. 

* Kids saying goodbye to friends. 

* Seniors becoming more isolated as people in their network leave. 

And of course people recognize displacement as losing one's home under economic pressure; being compelled to abandon one's community. 

What is significant about this for most people is a kind of catastrophic disruption of a broad range of social relations, including but not only economic relations. 

The individual experiences of displacement and gentrification are of a social fabric being shredded. 

Every analysis, policy proposal, or scientific study that purports to be about displacement and/or gentrification ought, ultimately, to be examined in terms of those individual and community meanings. 

The academic study of displacement and gentrification 

When academics like Zuk and Chappel want to study displacement and gentrification they face a real problem. There aren't really any statistics that measure the destruction of community. The condition of the social fabric doesn't appear in census tables. 

When academics study these issues, for the most part, they have to rely on very indirect clues. 

I wish to highlight two constructions used in Zuk and Chappel's IGS Research Brief, (a) the measurement used as a proxy for "displacement"; (b) the distinction made between neighborhood displacement and regional displacement. 

To an individual human, displacement within one's community is a significant loss of continuity in the evolving social fabric of a community. In a stable community, people may come and go, and the character of the community may change over time, but there is a kind of continuity. In-migrations more often result in integration into the community. Out-migrations are largely isolated events, often purely voluntary. In a stable community, kids grow up knowing one another. Adults form networks of mutual trust and support. In a community experiencing displacement, that dynamic withers. 

To measure "displacement", Zuk and Chappel rely on a proxy. They study the absolute and relative numbers of low income households in an geographic of study. To see if there has been displacement, in other words, they count poor people. 

That is a suspect proxy, of course. It is insensitive to the effects of gentrification. It also doesn't measure community stability, only a general character of the incomes of whatever households happen to be there. If there's a lot of churn, and communities break up, but there's still plenty of the poor, it appears as no displacement. 

This proxy measurement problem is worsened by Zuk and Chappel's introduction of the concept of "regional displacement" as contrasted with "neighborhood (or block-level) displacement". 

When people complain of gentrification and displacement, they very nearly always refer to neighborhood-level displacement. Even if someone says, for example, "Black people are being driven out of San Franciso [or Oakland, or Berkeley or the East Bay]," OK, they are talking about a large area but if you look closer, they are talking mostly about very specific, very local neighborhoods. 

In contrast, the concept of "regional displacement" (or its absence) is not really an individual concern. It is a concern of capital: a concern about the regional supply of low-wage labor and the regional need for various forms of welfare. Frankly, when people are watching their communities being torn up, and when they are being forced away from their neighbors, friends, and established life, the regional supply of cheap labor is the least of their concerns. 

What the report really says 

To its credit, the IGS Research Brief clearly states what I will paraphrase here: 

(a) Market rate development does not help and may worsen displacement at the neighborhood level. There are good reasons to think it makes things worse. 

(b) Subsidized development has little or no impact on neighborhood-level displacement. 

(c) Other means -- not development of any kind -- are likely necessary to protect local communities. 

Zuk and Chappel do cheerlead for development, mostly on the basis of its regional effects on the supply of workers. Nevertheless, they are unequivocal that if government is not to become the enemy of community, then government must look far beyond development to address displacement and gentrification. 

The Big Lies 

Darwin BondGraham: 

"According to a new report by UC Berkeley researchers, the best way to prevent gentrification and displacement is to build affordable housing in cities and neighborhoods where rents and home prices are rising fastest. " 

As you can see from the above,the IGS Research Brief very nearly says the exact opposite. In fact consider this quote from the Brief's conclusion: 

"In overheated markets like San Francisco, addressing the displacement crisis will require aggressive preservation strategies in addition to the development of subsidized and market-rate housing, as building alone won’t protect specific vulnerable neighborhoods and households. This does not mean that we should not continue and even accelerate building. However, 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." 

Consider the headline: "UC Berkeley Report: Affordable Housing is Best Way to Combat Gentrification" 

First, the report says only that development is associated with preserving low income households at regional scale, not in communities. 

Second, the report compares the effects of only two development strategies, examining their relative merits, and noting that neither is adequate to the problem. It says nothing about "best" strategies. 

Even though the article states a blatant falsehood, it must be understood as, nevertheless, a potent political weapon. For example, it is not hard to imagine a councilmember like Droste, Capitelli, Arreguin, or Anderson -- any of them really -- citing the East Bay Express article as a source of authority. That is, false reporting like this helps to advance bad policy. 

Nor can the IGS Research Brief be entirely excused. It encourages precisely the misreading BondGraham came up with. Several times, without argumentation, simply by unsupported assertion, the Brief's authors cite the criticality of new development. They repeatedly endorse it for unstated reasons. 

I wish I could say that this kind of thing was exceptional. The underlying science, having gone through various filters, is described as saying nearly the opposite of what is said. At multiple levels of presentation, a narrow political agenda in favor of aggressive housing development is advanced, in spite of the underlying findings. By all appearances, the individual concern about the loss of community continuity is deliberately suppressed, and the workforce demographic concerns of capital are disguised as an answer to those individual worries. 

This is typical. For whatever reason, our policy-formation institutions are completely immunized against any critical examination of objective facts. 


Links: 

Darwin BondGrahm's article 

Berkeley IGS Research Brief 


As Election Day approaches, I miss Alex

Joanna Graham
Friday June 03, 2016 - 01:58:00 PM

I still miss Alexander Cockburn—his deep intelligence and broad erudition, his passionate engagement and devilish wit, but, most of all, I miss his bubbly, irrepressible optimism. Whenever, after still another horrible something had happened and every other leftist had put a pistol to his or her head, finger on the trigger, Alex inevitably wrote a piece about why we should all be gladdened because, for reasons x, y, and z, the “something” presented unparalleled opportunities for human advancement.

What would he be writing during this surreally horrific presidential election year? I keep trying to figure this out, given what I know about his opinions. Of course he loathed the Clintons. Not surprising, who doesn’t? But one of his many idiosyncratic pet peeves was the relatively obscure and harmless Vermont politico Bernie Sanders, whom Alex detested as an absolute phony, a man who called himself socialist while always voting as a moderate—that is, right-wing—Democrat. In fact, I might never have heard of Bernie Sanders if Alex hadn’t devoted so many column inches over the years to attacking him.

So would he now be cheerfully urging us to take a chance and vote for Donald Trump? Would he be crowing because this guy who thumbs his nose at Wall Street, refuses to take the pledge to destroy Social Security, and suggests we might be friends with Russia and that it’s time to wind up NATO came out on top in a field of 17 starters, and did it in large part because the mainstream media screwed itself, over the years turning politics into infotainment, creating instant celebrities via “reality,” blurring the lines between the real and unreal, the important and the trivial, deliberately mystifying and dumbing down the American public, already made supremely ignorant by American public schools? 

Alex actually loved and trusted the ordinary folk of the U.S.A. He was always flying out to Georgia or wherever it was where his favorite mechanic fixed up old classic American cars for him. He would then drive the latest back through the South, stopping to visit old friends, publishing opinions as he went on the best barbecue joints along his route. And of course he eschewed the “liberal” Bay Area, choosing instead to live in Humboldt County, among the rural working folk and hippies, where he happily hiked, hunted, and kept his horse and many other beloved animals. 

I am certain he would be cheering this year that the masses rose up and thumbed their noses at the entire stinking Republican establishment—and at the Clintons too, steeped in their corruption (although the Bernie problem remains). Not to forget that only Alex, quoting Hannah Arendt, recognized the Rodney King riot as a moment of “public happiness” and cheered the participants on. His desire to upend the existing rotten order burned within him so strongly that it blinded him sometimes to the real pain of disorder. 

For there is also Trump’s narcissism, detachment from reality, monumental ignorance, and misogyny. Would Alex have urged us to simply ignore these and other major character defects? (Having written this list, I’m realizing that the first three also characterize Hillary Clinton and the last one her husband as well—as I’m sure Alex would have quickly pointed out. Thanks, Alex.) 

How did we get to this pass, where both likely nominees are abhorrent, partly for the same, partly for different reasons? Where, in fact, as opposite as they may superficially appear, they both belong to and even sometimes cross paths in the same New York City circle, wealthy beyond imagining from finance, insurance, and real estate, the greedy FIRE sector that is gobbling its way through the American economy and American lives to feed its own insatiable appetite for more mansions, islands, airplanes, yachts. And both hover, in a sense, on the nervous edge of it: Bill and Hill, the arrivistes, cadging rides on other people’s private jets or giving quarter-million-dollar “speeches” in return for “access”; Trump, possibly the pretender, who may not be as rich as he claims, whose deals may not have been as successful as he boasts, who played a power broker on TV for umpteen seasons, while the real power brokers stay out of sight, sliding from meeting to meeting in their darkened limos, keeping their mouths tightly shut. 

How did we get to this pass, where the two likely nominees, equally of bad character, equally detested and rightly so, are both fringe members of the same financial one percent, panting to be richer, more important, more powerful than they are, terrified to wake up and find themselves back in Arkansas “dead broke” or standing in bankruptcy court with no state of New Jersey to bail them out. Bad characters, hypocrites, pretenders, liars, self-deluders—spawned by a culture in which lies are the norm, in which all day every day people are paid to lie, compelled to lie, and rewarded for lying well. How could we expect either to be capable of honesty or decency or fellow feeling? 

Quite a long time ago, even before the 17 Republican candidates filed, I started to panic, asking myself why, when the human race faces so many looming interlocking catastrophes, neither party was likely to come up with a candidate who was even adequate. And then I realized the question provides its own answer. The breakdown of the political system is part of the general crisis. 

What then is to be done? I, for one, intend to vote for Bernie in the upcoming primary in the hope that he will carry California. That way, both parties will go to their conventions understanding that they are in deep trouble, the Republicans with a nominee picked by the people the party cannot support and the Democrats, a.k.a. the Clinton machine, with a self-selected nominee crowned by the party whom the voters have rejected. 

“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels…upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!” Mario Savio, December 2, 1964. Remember? 


Israel hard right shift

Jagjit Singh
Friday June 03, 2016 - 01:26:00 PM

Two of Bernie Sanders appointees to the Democratic drafting committee, Cornel West and James Zogby, launched a scathing criticism of Israel’s long occupation signaling a possible shift in their party’s unconditional support for Israel. West commented, “Justice for Palestinians cannot be attained without lifting the occupation” and accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of “war crimes”. While U.S. policy has always focused exclusively on security for Israel, it has completely ignored the plight and security of the Palestinians who have been forced to endure dispossession of their land and decades of an increasing harsh occupation.  

Netanyahu’s polarizing influence, gross interference in our political system and repeated insulting snubs at our president has a lot to do with these changing attitudes. According to a Pew Research Center survey in April, self-described liberal Democrats were twice as likely to sympathize with Palestinians over Israel than they were just two years ago. Netanyahu’s latest appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as defense minister reflects a dangerous shift to the right which caused outrage in the Knesset and the resignation of Environmental Protection Minister, Avi Gabbay. Sadly, Palestinians will now be forced to endure more repression and misery. Meanwhile the Obama administration is negotiating a new more generous defense aid package that could top $40 billion over 10 years. For more, go to, http://callforsocialjustice.blogspot.com/


Another U.S. proxy bites the dust

Tejinder Uberoi
Friday June 03, 2016 - 01:13:00 PM

After years of relentless pursuit for justice, President Hissène Habré, of Chad was found guilty of crimes against humanity. His reputation as a brutal warlord in Chad’s civil war did not appear to trouble the Reagan administration who offered massive U.S. military support to bring him to power in 1982. He was often described as "Africa’s Pinochet," for his brutal crackdown on civil dissent. In addition to military support, the U.S. trained his secret police, the DDS who was the main instrument of repression disappearing and torturing thousands of innocent civilians. Under the Freedom of Information Act, memos uncovered during the trial, show the U.S. was fully aware of the brutal crackdowns but did nothing to stop them. Habré was deposed in 1990 but lived a life of luxury in neighboring Senegal until his trial. It was only a precedent established by the British House of Lords which allowed former head of state Pinochet of Chile to be arrested and tried, that the noose finally closed around Habré. The Obama administration and Senegal deserve credit for finally pursuing the course of justice leading to Habré’s arrest and indictment.


Columns

ON MENTAL ILLNESS: Addiction

Jack Bragen
Friday June 03, 2016 - 07:57:00 PM

When someone has substance abuse problems on top of a distinct (yet probably interweaved) psychiatric disorder, the term used to describe this is "dual diagnosis." Addiction to a substance is not uncommon for people with psychiatric problems. Also, when mental health practitioners or other authorities are initially trying to discern someone's problem, it can be hard for them to know whether the individual's symptoms come from narcotics versus having a psychiatric disorder. After an individual has more of a history with treatment professionals, those professionals have more data to work with. 

Being high on something can make someone appear to have a psychiatric disorder. And in fact, substances can sometimes turn a normal person into a permanent psych patient. 

When someone initially becomes mentally ill, usually in his or her late teens or early twenties, drugs are sometimes involved as a trigger of onset, even when the problem is psychiatric. The narcotic could be the last straw for someone who initially is barely keeping it together. 

A person with both a psychiatric disorder and an addiction to a substance gets a double whammy. Such a person has to maintain sobriety but must also maintain mental health usually by taking medication. Anyone who can do both is quite a strong person.  

The best cure for substance abuse is never to try them in the first place. Now, the U.S. suffers from a nationwide addiction to opioids, and, according to mainstream news sources, China is playing a role in getting these into the U.S., by route of Mexico. 

In housing set aside for people with mental illness, drug dealers are often attracted at the prospect of easy profit. Mentally ill people, due to relative helplessness, may be less able to defend oneself against the violence of drug dealers. Furthermore, mentally ill people are more likely to try a drug, in hopes of escape from the misery of living with symptoms of mental illness, and in hopes of temporarily escaping the difficulties of their situation in life.  

A couple of different times, drug dealers who did business where I was living have come after me, in a threatening and assaultive manner; apparently they believed I was creating an inconvenience for their enterprise. 

With the substances out there, just trying something one time can get someone hooked. Also, doctors who prescribe pain medication, presumably from a place of compassion and not wanting their patient to suffer, inadvertently cause otherwise normal people to become addicts. This is all over the news recently. 

For persons with mental illness, I have heard an expert say that it doesn't work to let them "hit bottom" because death often happens before hitting bottom. 

Apparently, addictive substances modify the brain's wiring on a very profound level. The individual is unable to feel "normal" and "okay" unless they keep their addiction fed.  

With my experience as a nicotine addict, I have learned that it is harder than anticipated to quit a substance once it is in your system. This information has furnished me with a stark warning concerning the danger posed by other addictive substances. I regret ever picking up that first cigarette.  

It doesn't work to simply accuse someone of turpitude--this is often a bad event that happens to good people. We lost the "war on drugs" which started from a bad premise. That premise was that anyone who is addicted to or involved with drugs is a bad person and should be incarcerated.  

My wife commented that law enforcement has begun to take a less punitive and more compassionate approach toward people who are addicted because it is no longer thought to be "a black problem"--it is happening to Aunt Bessie, Grandma, and Grandpa. (This is similar to how HIV was dealt with in the latter part of the 1980's. Movie stars and mainstream people who were not gay men or intravenous drug users started getting it, and it became destigmatized.) 

In fact, I believe it never really was primarily African American people who have taken illegal substances--this was a misnomer. Racial profiling has meant that nonwhite individuals have been disproportionately punished. I have run across plenty of white people on drugs and alcohol.  

For someone with mental illness, my advice is not to try these substances in the first place. If in pain, Motrin, taken according to directions, may sometimes do enough to bring relief--try that first.  

Opioids present a very difficult problem to human beings, and there is no easy solution. Doctors have to be more restrained in prescribing painkillers, and this problem needs to be moved out of the courts, and should be mostly in the domain of treatment professionals.  

*** 

Caution concerning pirated ebooks: I have made most of my books available on Amazon Kindle. However, there are disreputable websites that claim to make the books available for "free download." I didn't authorize this, and it is a breach of my copyrights. If you want a copy of one of my ebooks, get it only from Amazon. These websites could also be involved in phishing. Also, for physical copies, your best bet is to go with either Amazon or LULU.com to get a copy. Thanks much, Jack. 

 

 


DISPATCHES FROM THE EDGE:A Very Brazillian Coup

Conn Hallinan
Friday June 03, 2016 - 01:17:00 PM

On one level, the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff seems like vintage commedia dell’arte: the Lower House speaker who brought the charges, Eduardo Cunha, had to step down because he has $16 million stashed in secret Swiss and U.S. bank accounts. The man who replaced Cunha, Waldir Maranhao, is implicated in corruption around the huge state-owned oil company, Petroblas. The former vice-president and now president, Michel Temer, has been convicted of election fraud, and has also been caught up in the Petroblas investigation. And the president of the Senate, Renan Calheiros, has also been implicated in the oil company scandal and is dodging tax evasion charges. In fact, over half the legislature is currently under investigation for corruption of some kind. 

But there is nothing comedic about what the fall of Rousseff and her Workers Party will mean for the 35 million Brazilians who have been lifted out of poverty over the past decade, and for the 40 million newly minted members of the middle class one-fifth of Brazil’s 200 million people. 

While it was the current downturn in the world’s seventh largest economy that helped light the impeachment fuse, the crisis is rooted in the nature of Brazil’s elites, its deeply flawed political institutions, and the not so dead hand of its 1964-1985 military dictatorship. 

Given that the charges against Rousseff do not involve personal corruption, or even constitute a crime—if juggling books before an election were illegal, virtually every politician on the planet would end up in the docket—it is hard to see the impeachment as anything other than a political coup. Even the conservative Economist, long a critic of Rousseff, writes “in the absence of proof of criminality, impeachment is unwarranted” and “looks like a pretext for ousting an unpopular president.” 

That suspicion is reinforced by the actions of the new President. Temer represents the center-right Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB) that until recently was in alliance with Rousseff’s Workers Party. As soon as Rousseff was impeached by the Senate and suspended from office for 180 days, Temer made a sharp turn to the right on the economy, appointing a cabinet of ministers straight out of Brazils’ dark years of dictatorship: all white, all male, and with the key portfolios in the hands of Brazil’s historic elites. This is in a country where just short of 51 percent of Brazilians describe themselves as black or mixed. 

Seven of those ministers have been implicated in the Petroblas scandal. 

 

The President announced a program to “reform” labor laws and pensions, code words for anti-union legislation and pension cuts. His new Finance Minister, Henrique Meirelles, a former central bank head who once headed BankBoston in the U.S., announced that, while programs for the poor “which don’t cost the budget that much” would be maintained—like the highly popular and successful Bolsa Familia that raised tens of millions out of poverty through small cash grants— other Worker Party initiatives would go under the knife. 

The new government is already pushing legislation that would roll back laws protecting the environment and indigenous people, and has appointed ministers with terrible track records in both areas. 

One of the largest soybean farmers in Brazil, Blairo Maggi, was appointed Agriculture minister. Maggi has overseen the destruction of vast areas of the Amazon to make way for soybean crops. Temer’s initial appointment for Science minister was an evangelical Protestant minister who doesn’t believe in evolution. Temer also folded the culture ministry into the ministry of education, sparking sit-ins and demonstrations by artists, filmmakers and musicians. 

Brazil has long been a country with sharp divisions between wealth and poverty, and its elites have a history of using violence and intimidation. Brazil’s northeast is dominated by oligarchs who backed the 1964 military coup and manipulated the post-dictatorship constitution. 

Political power is heavily weighted toward rural areas dominated by powerful agricultural interests. The three poorest regions of the country, accounting for only two fifths of the population, control three quarters of the seats in the Senate. 

As historian Perry Anderson puts it, the political system was designed “to neutralize the possibility that democracy might lead to the formation of any popular will that could threaten the enormities of Brazilian inequality.” 

Brazil’s legislature is splintered into 35 different parties, many of them without a political philosophy. The legislature is elected on the basis of proportional representation, but with an added twist: an “open list” system in which voters can choose any candidate, many of them standing on the same ticket. The key to winning elections in Brazil, then, is name recognition, and the key to that is lots and lots of money. Most of that money comes from Brazil’s elites and the oligarchs in the country’s northeast. 

Because of the plethora of parties, forming a government is tricky. What normally happens is that one of the larger parties ropes in several smaller parties by giving them ministries. Not only does this encourage corruption—each party knows it needs to raise lots of money for elections—but results in political incoherence.  

When the Workers Party was elected in 2002 it was unwilling to dilute its programs by bringing ideological opponents into a cabinet, yet the Workers Party needed partners. The solution was cash payouts to legislators, a scheme titled “mensalao” (“monthly payoffs”) that was uncovered in 2005. Once the payoffs were revealed, the Workers party had little choice but to fall back on the old system of handing out ministries in exchange for votes. That is how Temer and the PMBD entered the scene. 

 

With the reputation of Silva and the Workers Party dented by the payoff scheme, the right saw an opportunity to rid themselves of the left, but Silva’s popularity and the success of programs aimed at alleviating poverty made the Workers Party pretty much unassailable at the ballot box. Silva won another landslide election in 2006, and Rousseff was elected twice in 2010 and 2014. In short, the elites could not win elections. 

But they could still pull off a very Brazilian coup. First, they hammered at the fact that some Workers Party leaders had been involved in corruption and others implicated in the Petroblas bribery scheme. Rousseff headed up Petroblas before being elected President. While she has never been linked to any of the corruption, it did happen on her watch. 

Petroblas is rated the fourth largest company in the world, and it is building tankers, off shore platforms and refineries. That expansion has opened opportunities for graft, and the level of bribery involved could exceed $3 billion. Nine construction companies are implicated in the scandal, as well as more than 50 politicians, legislators and state governors, including the PMDB and the Workers Party. 

Rousseff’s biggest mistake was to run on an anti-austerity platform in 2014 and then reversing course after she was elected, putting the brakes on spending. The economy was already troubled and austerity made it worse. The 2005 bribery scheme lost the Workers Party some of the middle class, and the 2014 austerity alienated some of the Party’s working class support. 

But it was most likely Rousseff’s decision to green light the Petroblas corruption investigation that spurred her enemies to strike before the probe pulls down scores of political leaders and wealthy construction owners. One of Temer’s ministers was recently caught on tape plotting how to use the impeachment to derail the investigation. 

Certainly the campaign aimed at Rousseff was well orchestrated. Brazil’s media—dominated by a few elite families—led the charge. According to Reporters Without Borders, the role of the media was “partisan,” its anti-Rousseff agenda “barely veiled.” Judge Sergio Moro, who is a key figure in the Petroblas investigation, illegally leaked wiretap intercepts that put Silva and Rousseff in a bad light. 

Given the makeup of the Brazilian Senate, it is likely Rousseff will be convicted and removed as President. It also appears that Temer will try to roll back many of the programs that successfully narrowed the gap between rich and poor. 

Brazil’s economy is in trouble, shrinking 3.7 percent last year. Commodity prices are down worldwide, in large part because of the downturn of China’s economy. Iron ore dropped from $155 to $55 a ton, soya went from $18 to $8 a bushel, and oil from $140 to less than $40 a barrel. 

Brazilian debt is rising, but it is still half that of Italy, and unemployment is low, at least by European standards. A return to the austerity policies that destroyed economies all across the southern cone during the 1980s and ‘90s would be a disaster. The worst thing one can do in a recession is curb spending, which stalls out economies and puts countries into a debt spiral. 

The austerity policies of the European Union have kept all but a few European economies virtually dead in the water, and those that have shown some growth, like Spain, still post unacceptable unemployment rates. Spain currently has an overall national jobless rate of 21 percent, rising to almost 50 percent among youth. Brazil’s jobless rate is 10.9 percent. 

For now, the Workers Party is on the ropes but hardly down and out. It has 500,000 members, and the new government will find it is very difficult to take things away from people now that they have gotten used to having them. Some 35 million people are unlikely to return to their previous poverty without a fight. 

One of Temer’s first acts was putting up 100,000 billboards all over the country with the slogan: “Don’t speak of crisis; work!”, which sounds a lot like “shut up.” Brazilians are not noted for being quiet, particularly if the government instituting painful cuts is unelected. 

The pressure for new elections is sure to grow, although the current government will do anything it can to avoid them. Sooner or later there will be a reckoning. 

---30--- 

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


THE PUBLIC EYE: The Hillary Problem

Bob Burnett
Friday June 03, 2016 - 01:09:00 PM

On the cusp of securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton has a problem: a lot of Democrats are unhappy with her campaign.

They have three reasons to be unhappy. First, Clinton’s approval ratings continue to be abysmal. Second, Clinton’s handling of the State Department email flap has left even her most loyal advocates scratching their heads in dismay. And third, most sensible Americans are scared to death of Donald Trump and, therefore, appalled that many recent polls show Clinton and Trump in a statistical dead heat. 

Clinton detractors typically cite her low approval ratings, but they haven’t always been low. Hillary was a popular Secretary of State. However, since leaving office her approval ratings have lost sixteen points -- from 56 percent to 40 percent. (It’s small consolation to Democrats that, at the moment, Trump is viewed even more unfavorably than Clinton.) 

The bulk of Hillary’s unfavorable rating hinges on the issue of trust. A recent Washington Post poll found that only 37 percent of respondents found Clinton honest and trustworthy. The fact that a lot of voters don’t trust Hillary is partially the fault of Republicans and partially her fault. 

Once Clinton ceased being Secretary of State (where she had high approval ratings), Republicans attacked her on two fronts. First, Republicans accused Clinton of malfeasance in the Benghazi affair. Their three-year witch-hunt culminated in an 11-hour hearing before a House Select Committee. Clinton got positive reviews for her deportment and refuted all charges. Unfortunately, the protracted Benghazi investigation dragged down her approval ratings and opened up an email controversy. 

During the summer of 2014, the Benghazi investigation revealed that while Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton handled email via her private server. While this was not illegal, per se, it was a violation of State Department rules. Many Republicans believe that Clinton will inevitably be indicted; as do some Bernie Sanders supporters, who hope this indictment will lead to his winning the Democratic presidential nomination. 

The indictment won’t happen. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, and others, have concluded that it is unlikely Hillary Clinton will be indicted over her use of a private email server. Law professor Richard Lempert observed: “Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information.” 

Nonetheless, the State Department Inspector General’s report indicated that Hillary, like some of her predecessors, “flouted department regulations on the use of private email.” As summarized by New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza

the real trouble, at least so far, is not anything Hillary Clinton actually did while in office, but how Clinton responded to the initial accusations. Clinton repeatedly maintained that the use of her private e-mail system was normal and approved by the relevant officials at the State Department. The inspector general says that’s not the case… [In addition] Clinton did not fully cooperate with the I.G. investigation.
 

At a time when many voters do not regard Hillary as trustworthy, her handling of the email controversy is unforgiveable. 

Finally, many Democrats are unhappy with Hillary’s presidential campaign. Some of their concern is situational: Trump secured the Republican nomination on May 26th and, at this writing, Hillary is still battling Bernie. Of course, Trump got a “polls bounce” from his victory and probably looks stronger now than he actually is. (The latest Huffington Post Poll of Polls finds Clinton ahead of Trump by 2 percentage points.) 

Nonetheless, Hillary is not as exciting a candidate as either Trump or Bernie Sanders. During a February interview Hillary admitted, “I am not a natural politician, like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.” It’s likely the case that Hillary is an introvert who would much rather be reading a book or in the company of a few friends than addressing an arena full of yelling fans. Add to this a dislike of the press and it’s no wonder that Clinton appears to many to be furtive. 

Hillary is intelligent and experienced – the most qualified presidential nominee in decades. But she’s not charismatic. 

To win the presidency Hillary has to do two things: First, she must do nothing else to make voters not trust her. And she needs testimonials. Recently, the Mother Jones’ political correspondent, Kevin Drum wrote an important article about Hillary. He quoted another correspondent, Jill Abramson, who has covered Clinton for 20 years, who observed. “There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.” Drum concluded: “The truth is that regardless of how [Clinton] sometimes sounds, her record is pretty clear: Hillary Clinton really is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.” 

Second, Hillary has to emphasize her experience and temperament. There are five months before the presidential election and Clinton has more than enough time to remedy her deficits and play to her strengths. 


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

 

 

 


Arts & Events

AROUND AND ABOUT: Book Release & Film Screenings for Allen Willis's--aka John Alan--'The Other America: A Black-Red View' at the East Bay Media Center

Ken Bullock
Friday June 03, 2016 - 11:00:00 PM

A book release & film screenings for author, filmmaker and pioneer Civil Rights activist Allen Willis--aka John Alan--and his new book 'The Other America: A Black-Red View,' with screenings of his short films "Have You Sold Your Dozen Roses" (1960, with words by Lawrence Ferlinghetti) and 'The Psychedelic Experience (1965) 'will be held this Sunday, June 5 at the East Bay Media Center, 1939 Addison, between Milvia and MLK. There will be a discussion of the book and films. Admission is free.  

'The Other America' is a 275-page collection of Willis' essays from the News & Letters archive, 1970-99. Included with the book is a DVD of his historic film 'The Other America,' with Martin Luther King, Jr, 49 minutes, shot at Stanford in April, 1967. Copies will be available at the Media Center at a special price of $35 for this weekend only. 

For further information, contact the East Bay Media Center: 843-3699; eastbaymediacenter.com


AROUND AND ABOUT the Performing Arts: Busy End to Spring Season (Notes on Curious Flights' Concert 'The Age of Flight' & Theater at the SF International Arts Festival)

Ken Bullock
Saturday June 04, 2016 - 09:39:00 AM

Around this time every year, the Spring performing arts season, instead of winding down, goes into a burst of activity for maybe a week or two past Memorial Day, then fades into summer productions and festivals both in and out of town ... 

This year one Festival started a week before the holiday and continued since, including this weekend after Memorial Day--the San Francisco International Arts Festival at Fort Mason, with representative companies and solo artists from just about all the arts around the East Bay, the Bay Area and the world--and a Memorial Day weekend concert that could have been--and still should be--gracing a festival some where in the world, Curious Flights' season ender, 'The Age of Flight,' with unusual performances of several midcentury contemporaries in differnet styles and formats, all around a revival, the West Coast premiere of Marc Blitzstein's epic saga of flight and the air war of World War II, 'Airborne,' an ambitious work that premiered in 1946 with full symphonic orchestra, soloists and chorus and a narrator.

At Fort Mason, the activity on the last weekend of the San Francisco International Arts Festival's still dense through Sunday night in the third and final week of performances by artists from all over. 

One to be singled out, with shows at 6 on Saturday and 2 Sunday in the old Firehouse, Berkeley's Inferno Theatre continues with the second installment of the ongoing trilogy--triptych, I want to say--of founder Guilio Perrone's 'Quantum Desire,' the first part, 'Quantum Love,'' seen at last year's SFIAF, and this one previewed in shorter form at Inferno's annual weekend-long Diasporas Festival a month ago at South Berkeley Community Church, home base to Inferno, where I saw it share the stage with other artists and companies Inferno assembled.  

"Desire, my love, what is it you long for?" 

It's probably the best--and on the surface, in terms of apparent production, the simplest--of the notable string of originals Perrone's staged since he and an ensemble of three inaugurated Inferno not quite six years ago at the City Club with a kind of intimate chamber epic of the Baroque, 'Galileo's Daughters.' 'Quantum Desire' continues the couple-by-couple (and the couples uncouple and couple up again!) and contrapuntally ensemble movements amid impassioned monologues and dialogue of physical science (shades of Galileo, but in Copenhagen?) and attraction that last year's first part displayed, which I tried to do justice to by describing it as a kind of locus buzzing with rash sppeches, exchanges and physical acts, ending up like the Laocoön, with the cast intertwined ...  

But 'Desire' features a highly-committed new ensemble (Wei-Shan Lau, Benoît Monin, David-James Silpa, Brittany Sims, Tenya Spillman, Baela Tinsley, Vicki Victoria) in an even warmer, faster-paced and more direct mutual encounter. Asking Perrone last month what made the difference, he replied that from the start he was focusing more on the quality of the shifting relationships than before; in 'Love' the ground (and background) for the whole trilogy--or, again, triptych had to be laid and filled in. 

Some moments are like processionals celebrating desire, a bawdy pas-de-deux followed by carnival ... There's charm and exhilaration in the movement and tableaux (reminiscent, but just for a second, of Bernini's group sculptures, often from Ovid's 'Metamorphoses,' the inspiration for another Inferno show) 'of the couples and ensemble, genuinely erotic, talking impassioned speculation, never at rest, but at ease in endless motion. ( infernotheatre.org --also for code for discount tickets to the final performances) 

The first week of SFIAF saw performances by a touring company of Ireland's Pan Pan Theatre of their outlandish pastiche, 'The Seagull & Other Birds,' set like a rave-up (or a Rave), highly visible sound table onstage, no set--unless you count the dustcovering-like sheets draped over the performers, a foggy sculturesque group entrance, after some pre-acting with the audience.  

Some fell for the seeming conceit whole cloth, though it quickly appeared more satiric-not so much a "deconstruction" (read: conceptual sketch) of Chekhov as a sly yet outrageous satire on putting on a show in the days of post-post-modernism and the mutual immolation of public and private life. In fact, the troupe acted out bits and pieces from that pioneer play about making a play out of nothing while the real melodrama quietly rages all around, interspersed with snippets of other work, like the "make a scene" climax from 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf' instead of the brutally indifferent card game at the conclusion that muffles Constantine's suicide--and periodic ballet études (including a few stumbling, cross-dressed ballerinas in tu-tu, one a slight, bearded middle-aged actor) ... meanwhile taking the piss out of each other, a fine night'sself-entertainment down at the shabeen. 

Unlike an older San Francisco, populated--especially South of the Slot--by gossoons and shanty and lace curtain alike, the wryness of the doings didn't inspire much laughter in the crowd, though it gave Pan Pan an appreciative ovation--making me recall the cackling at moments in Beckett not usually played as funny here, when a crowd of Jackeen ex-pats, drawn by the venerable Gate Theatre's tour of 'Endgame' that Cal Performances hosted, thronged the audience at Zellerbach Playhouse a few years back. Pan Pan fit into its own niche among the progressive and very professional theatrics the Gate and Druid, also produced by Cal Perfs (with Berkeley Rep) have brought to us. 

There's more to the SFIAF than theater alone--music, dance, solo shows ... just one example on Sunday: afternoon and evening shows by Anthony Brown's Asian American Orchestra's celebration of, 56 years after, Max Roach's epic-making album of 1960, We Insist! Freedom Now Suite, with lyricist Oscar Brown, Jr, and the participation of artists like Coleman Hawkins and Abbey Lincoln ... some of the finest players of the East Bay and whole Bay Area unite for this Civil Rights classic of the music in a fraught election year. ( www.sfiaf.org ) 

And Memorial Day weekend saw the triumph--really, the most ambitious of astring of triumphs--when the still new, ongoing concert hall project of Curious Flight, brainchild of Brenden Guy and his fine, committed collaborators staged an evening more like a special night at an eminent summer muic festival than the last of a season's concerts, an ambitious program The Age of Flight at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, featuring works instrumental, choral and with vocal soloists by several contemporaries of the 1930s and 40s, dramatically showing something of the mid-century's range of styles, from songs out of Hollywood film scores by Viennese composer Erich Wolfgang Korngold, sung winningly by tenor Brian Thorsett in a long-gone style right out of Joyce's 'Portrait of the Artist' (later Michael Freeman telling a few of us old repartée of Korngold and Max Steiner: "Why is your music getting so much worse and mine always getting better?" ... "Because I'm stealing from you--and you're stealing from me!"); Aaron Copland's Sextet for clarinet, piano and string quartet (featuring excellent playing by Guy on clarinet and Miles Graber, piano); Samuel Barber's stirring chorale, with Spanish Civil war lyrics by Stephen Spender, A Stopwatch and an Ordnance Map, sung by the Curious Flights Chorus, conducted by Bobby Chastain ...  

And after intermission, a veritable blockbuster, a panoramic mural of a piece, Marc Blitzstein's The Airborne Symphony, from the presaging and beginnings of human flight to the air war of the 30s-40s, expertly put across in its West Coast premiere, almost 70 years after its debut, by the Curious FlightsSymphony Orchestra, conducted by Alasdair Neale (of Marin Symphony), with an augmented chorus and splendid work by Thorsett and baritone Efrain Solis--whose moving shift of tone in the segment "Dear Emily" of a "white-faced 19 year old bombadier" trying to write his girl before a mission was one of the evening's highlights--and narrator David Latulippe, in a role originated by Orson Welles ... From the brash, slangy chutzpah of American airmen joining up to their sardonic sense of the War as Hurry Up & Wait, to facing mortality alone in a fragile machine aloft--the concert proved to be an immersion into a recent-enough but seemingly-distant epoch, its public and private--and artistic--sensibilities; one of the things the arts are supposed to do, return us to our origins, remind us of our antecedants. 

An auspicious prequel or early start to theseason of festivals--and looking forward to those local, or with local connections: theEarly Music Festival, coming right up; also the Ojai Festival in Berkeley, produced by Cal Performances, including a performance of Kaija Saariaho's hailed "mono-opera" about Simone Weil--and next month the Valley of the Moon Festival of early Romantic chamber music on period instruments and the weeks-long Mendocino Music Festival, featuring all kinds of music, jazz to opera, chamer music to Big Band, orchestral compositions to folk, by the ocean in the town of Mendocino.