Public Comment

Is mayoral candidate Ben Gould playing the role of attack dog?

James McFadden
Thursday September 15, 2016 - 09:33:00 PM

Some thought on Ben Gould and his attack on Jesse Arreguin.

I’ve been wondering what inspired a grad student to run for mayor ever since I met the guy earlier this year. Why would Ben Gould run for mayor when: 1) he had no name recognition, 2) he apparently had no city government experience 3) he seemed clueless about most issues important to the city, 4) he seemed unmotivated since he rarely, if ever, showed up for any city council meetings (or any other city meetings for the past two years when I started attending), 5) he showed no passion about any issues, and 6) he had no chance of winning. Did he just like to wear suits and be on stage? Was grad school so easy that he had time for this? (I remember working 70-80 hours a week when I was a grad student). I had pretty much forgotten about the guy until he wrote an editorial in Berkeleyside that posted on September 12.

What is now clear is that Ben Gould joined the mayoral race to play the role of Capitelli’s attack dog -- or the developers’ attack dog since Capitelli is the developers’ candidate. Ben’s job is to attack Jesse Arreguin on non-issues and be the conduit of developer propaganda. Ben’s job is to distort Jesse’s record in order to keep Jesse distracted and on the defensive. Running for mayor gives Ben Gould the perfect platform he needed to play that role -- libertarian attack dog. 

I should have noticed Ben’s association with Eric Panzer and made the connection sooner. For those not in the know, Panzer is the guy who leads “version 2” of the developer shills at City Council meetings. Developer shills “version 1” were more entertaining. They started appearing about one and a half years ago defending developer interests. I’ve always wondered what motivated that group of misfits, apparently poor misfits who were having trouble paying their rents, who were led by a young woman with quite a mouth and temper. Why did they care enough about defending developer profits to sit through hours of City Council meetings just to speak for 2 minutes in support of market rate housing they could never afford. But apparently they were too shrill and confused for the developer beholden council members (Bates, Capitelli, Maio, Droste, Moore, Wengraf), so they just disappeared – never to be seen again. 

Soon after, they were replaced by Eric Panzer and his little group of like-minded libertarians (developer shills “version 2”). Like most trolls they scan Berkeleyside, or any other public information platforms, attacking anyone or any idea that might prevent maximization of developer profits – otherwise known as market-rate housing. They do this regardless of the impact on the current Berkeley citizens or neighborhoods, or on the character of the city, or on the environment. They construct their attacks in the language of libertarian myths – “free markets, not profitable enough, private-public partnerships” – mixing in a bit of greenwashing. They remind me of the climate chaos deniers – or the tobacco shills.  

But back to Gould and his attack on Jesse. This strategy seems to come right out of Frank Underwood’s presidential strategy on House of Cards (season 3, Gould=Sharp). Or maybe he got it from the Tom “newspaper thieving” Bates playbook of dirty political tricks. It is an attack strategy to put Jesse on the defensive. It is a strategy to help Capitelli look mayoral and avoid looking nasty (although that is difficult to do). It also helps distract the public from questions about Capitelli -- like his real-estate fees from the half-million dollar loan Capitelli brokered for the chief of police – a loan from city funds. It also helps Capitelli avoid questions about his real role in the Berkeley minimum wage fight – where he fought against any increase for years. And how, once the voter petition put a minimum wage measure on the ballot, Capitelli led the charge to subvert the voter initiative. He did this by introducing a competing City Council ballot measure in a cynical attempt to confuse and split the voters (divide and conquer strategy). And when he was finally pressured into a compromise – after all that subversion – Capitelli tries to claim that he was the champion of the working poor in brokering the minimum wage deal. Much like any shady politician trying to claim the lime light – Capitelli is trying to claim glory for something that he attempted to undermine for years. 

In contrast, based on watching Jesse for the last two years, I see in him someone who really cares about people and serving the community. From all his appearances I’ve witnessed on Council, and from conversations we have had, I believe Jesse is someone who cares about the future of the city, about the poor, about the housing bubble, about the environment, and about getting the right stuff done to keep our city healthy. Jesse doesn’t take any corporate money or developer money. He does not see his role as someone handing out developer permits to his backers -- as Bates-Capitelli cartel has for the last decade. And Jesse’s championing of the working class – rather than the investor class – has earned him the endorsement of Bernie Sanders. 

But back to Ben Gould. Has Capitelli promised to give Gould anything in return for his attack dog services? Did he get any promises for an appointment? A seat on a board? Backing for a future run for Council? Did any developer’s promise Gould anything? Did he take any developer or corporate money for his campaign or for any other purposes? What motivated Gould to take on the attack dog role? I guess if Capitelli is elected mayor, we might find out. And my advice to Gould: be careful whose political bed you get into – the smell is often difficult to remove.