The trees in People’s Park are irreplaceable and crucial for the health of Berkeley. So many studies are now showing the importance of green spaces in urban areas for the health and biodiversity of cities. They keep temperatures down, clean air pollution and slow climate change. Studies show people who live close to green spaces are healthier in everything from heart rates, immune functioning, stress, and mental health to reduced pms symptoms, anxiety and cardiovascular mortality. People’s Park holds numerous large trees, plants, permeable soft soil and an ecological reprieve for city wildlife. This cannot be replaced if UC destroys it.  

Sure, it’s a good idea to plant some new trees somewhere for five generations into the future, but UC cannot, no human can, replace the 100+ year old redwood in the Park, that is currently sequestering significant carbon and creating oxygen for a dense urban area. It has been shown that trees not only filter the air and lessen climate change in the future, but they also attract precipitation in the present.  

Cutting the trees may change the climate enough that future Redwoods would be unable to survive here. Witness Redwood Valley in Mendocino CA after logging, now dry and hot and devoid of its previous moist forests. UC has a plan to build a mega dorm on the Park and claims that many of the trees “will be preserved from the current park”, but clearly the designers did look at the actual trees now growing in the Park or they would have left the elder Redwood, that predates the Park, in their design, as it is not actually in the footprint of their proposed building. UC should certainly wait until the numerous community concerns and lawsuits are addressed before cutting any more trees in People’s Park. Their plan is ill conceived in so many ways. While it is long overdue to address the issues of homelessness in our community, UC and Berkeley stepping up to the plate to do something for the houseless is not a good reason to destroy the only open green space in a densely populated area, a Park that supplies countless services to all kinds of People in Berkeley.  

The offer of temporary housing for folks currently camping in People’s Park feels more like a publicity stunt than true concern or a long term improvement for Berkeley’s homeless. Building on the Park is not a done deal, there are many alternative locations for a dorm. To build on People’s Park is just a mean spirited assault on our community, our health and our history. People’s Park is not only a Berkeley landmark but it was recently officially listed on the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places! Can anyone imagine building on it could possibly go well? It would be ugly, painful and divisive. Likely there would be countless delays and cost overruns and our Park would be a construction site, an open wound, for decades. There is spell that protects People’s Park, deep in the roots, from everyone who has ever rested, planted, had lunch or fought for that special land. Those spirits, as well as the ancient Redwood, are best let be.

The June 2 special City Council meeting on the housing developments on the BART Station parking lots was the big event of the week. The North Berkeley Neighborhood Alliance let out a sigh of relief and celebration as the council voted unanimously after midnight in support of limiting the housing projects to a base of seven stories. 

The Berkeley Neighbors for Housing and Climate (BNCHA), who rejected the staff recommendation of a seven-story project and pushed the twelve-story base project approved by the Planning Commission in a 5 to 4 vote, also declared victory. Though they lost on their desired base height of 12 stories, they still won on the number of units with a minimum (not maximum) of 75 units per acre and the possibility of still getting to 12 stories using the state density bonus. 

The state density bonus (AB 2345) allows a developer/builder to exceed any zoning height limitation by reserving a percentage of units for low income households. There are a variety of combinations between the number of affordable units and the level of affordability outlined in AB 2345 which would allow a developer to exceed any zoning limits. The combination often used, and the one of concern here, is that by reserving 11% of the units for very low income households the developer receives a 50% award of extra units or height over any zoning restrictions. This could result in allowing an eleven-story building instead of the seven-story limit envisioned in the council vote. 

For those not immersed in the details of what really happened and what are the problems and potential outcomes, here are some perspectives and analysis. 

Mayor Arreguin defined the flow of the evening and the tasks at hand: the vote on the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) regarding the zoning decision, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between BART and the City of Berkeley which definined the zoning and the joint vision and priorities. Arreguin reminded everyone that the first meeting on the BART housing projects was in March 2018. 

Arreguin abruptly cut off Councilmember Sophie Hahn a number of times in the evening. Hahn (trained as an attorney) submitted a supplemental document with recommended revisions to the Joint Vision and Priorities (JVP) statement. Hahn’s revisions provided stronger language with more detail regarding landscaping, with emphasis on tree canopy, wider sidewalks, children’s play area and a tighter breakdown of affordability by percentage of units. 

Arreguin submitted his own JVP supplemental based on both the staff’s document and Hahn’s document. Where Arreguin did not reject Hahn’s recommendations altogether, he usually watered them down by adding the words “feasible” or “consider”. 

In the first round of council comment prior to public comment, Councilmember Kate Harrison clearly stated her support of the seven-story limit as being the best alternative to protect the climate and the neighborhood, citing the increased GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions from high rise buildings. When Councilmember Rigel Robinson followed Harrison, he countered with support of the twelve stories as the base height, and argued that there should not be a height limit at all. He claimed that increased height and density was the best climate alternative. 

Public comment followed, lasting several hours with a heavy majority (both in person and on line) attempting to persuade council to approve the seven-story height limit. Many made the statement that they would not vote for anyone who voted for the twelve-story high-rise strategy. This was clearly directed to Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani who is up for re-election in November. 

Through the night, I was doing my imaginary vote counting, trying to guess where each councilmember would land. I was never sure the seven-story limit would win, even after Arreguin stated after the close of public comment that he was supporting the seven-story height limit. Arreguin spoke to respecting the public process and the years of work and engagement with the community. 

BART is a heavy-rail public transit system, which makes the parking lot on which the housing projects would be built public land. Even though BART is underground in Berkeley, the land for its three stations was taken from private owners by eminent domain. And that is the rub for many who spoke in favor of the seven-story limit with 100% affordable housing. They rightly insisted that public land needs to be used for affordable housing, for the public good, not for the profiteering of a for-profit developer/lessee. 

Non-profit affordable housing developers like to keep their projects in the sweet spot of four to six stories, where the number of affordable units is maximized and the added cost of high-rise construction and high-rise building maintenance is avoided. Construction changes as the building grows taller, usually breaking around eight stories when substantial bracing (steel) becomes needed to stabilize the taller structure. 

To be in compliance with AB 2923, whoever builds on the Ashby and North Berkeley BART Station sites will be required to build a minimum of seven stories and will be allowed to provide no more than half of one parking space for each residential unit. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/00_AB2923_TechGuide_Draft_2020Jun.pdf 

The problem for BART and how we conceive of transit oriented housing is that the pandemic changed how we live, work, attend meetings and even where we want to live. Working remotely is here to stay and so is attending meetings via Zoom. People who work remotely can live anywhere. In fact, the states of Maine, Vermont, and Alaska and the cities of Newton IA Tulsa OK, Chattanooga TN, Hamilton OH and Lincoln KN all pay remote workers to relocate into their states or cities. 

BART ridership has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. In the most recent data available BART ridership is at 32% of 2019 levels. BART ridership for the month of May in 2019 was 413,525. In May 2022 it was 132,161. 

The ferry service provider Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) was a little better off in April in recapturing ridership. It reached a new high of just over 60% of the pre-pandemic level, but that was only through cutting fare cost to compete with and undercut BART. The goal was to shift riders from BART to the ferry, with ferries to Chase Center and Oracle Park to take advantage of sports events. WETA is continuing to cut fares for another year, coasting on American Rescue Plan funding. WETA found through its own survey that when ferry ticket prices return to “normal” pre-pandemic levels the riders who shifted from BART to the ferry will return to BART. Those riders returning to BART still won’t be more than a drop in the bucket to compensate for the BART ridership decline. And WETA will be scrambling when the American Rescue Plan funds run out to cover operating costs. 

Pre-pandemic, the Berkeley Unified School District Board meeting room, where the Berkeley City Council now meets, would have been overflowing with people waiting in line outside for their turn to speak and BPD counting heads to keep the number inside the room within safety limit requirements. Instead , while the mayor said the attendee count of the hybrid meeting (in-person and remote) was over 300, the Board room wasn’t packed. Maybe 60 were present in the room, per a guess of someone who attended in person. The rest attended via videoconference or teleconference. 

The planning of transit oriented development (TOD) has not caught up with this new reality. Even discussions for restoration of the Civic Center buildings include some stuck in the past, conceiving of the need for a new large city council chamber. 

A number of speakers during the evening stated they were home putting children to bed during the meeting. My evening of attending on Zoom, aside from the usual taking notes and checking news and emails, included making and eating dinner and putting in an hour on my treadmill. 

All this is to frame what could happen with choosing the “master” developer for the BART housing projects. The housing projects at the BART Stations will consist of multiple buildings at each site and there could be a separate developer for each apartment building under the direction of the “master” developer. The selection of the “master” developer is the next big step. There will be input from the City of Berkeley and the agreements between BART and the City of Berkeley will define the qualifications.  

BART makes the final selection of the “master” developer. The worry from this corner is that low ridership, the changing post-pandemic landscape of working remotely will push the BART Board into seeking market-rate housing to bolster their lagging income, with the hope that residents living above BART will become heavy BART users. 

I have not gone deeply enough into past BART ridership records to see how housing at BART 

stations affects ridership and what happened station by station throughout the pandemic. The BART ridership reports are easily available going back to 2001. https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership 

There was considerable council discussion around affordable units. Councilmember Harrison expressed wanting to ensure that if any developer chose to use in-lieu mitigation, the fee paid to escape including affordable housing in a project, then the in lieu-fee would go into on-site affordable housing. She noted further that there was no language in the agreements around in-lieu mitigation fees and asked the mayor when this would be addressed. Arreguin answered “good question.” 

Councilmember Wengraf said she heard that El Cerrito was getting 65% affordable housing without a city contribution and she wanted to know how, since Berkeley is contributing $53,000,000 to affordable housing. BART answered that it is 37% lower income and 12% middle income totaling 49% deed restricted, there are multiple factors and El Cerrito is using modular construction. 

The fatally flawed EIR (so-described by Thomas Lord, who is correct) was approved with a unanimous vote and used as justification for the council’s high-rise supporters as cover for their vote for the seven-story base, with the excuse that a twelve-story base would need a new EIR. This move in turn aided Kesarwani’s reelection bid. 

The mayor’s supplemental language was approved, rather than Hahn’s. Though I replayed the meeting end, the final version of the JVP seems a little squishy. 

As I’ve been reflecting on the organizing and perseverance of the North Berkeley Neighborhood Alliance,the work of both the group as a whole and the leaders keeping communication and organizing flowing are nothing less than amazing. They have a lot at stake. It is their neighborhood. This is not to diminish the hard work and engagement of the Friends of Adeline; they too organized and showed up. 

The fight isn’t over, but the understory of organizing carries lessons for all. Berkeley residents were up against the well-funded California YIMBYs, who have heavy real estate backing, paid staff and titles for front groups that avoid the word lobbyist. Real estate money funds election campaigns with political action committees (PACs aka dark money) and lobbyists. 

After Thursday night I’ve been thinking about close friends living in Southern California who listen to their political talk shows and have plenty of griping to do about what is happening in their city. To my knowledge they have never once attended a city meeting. To their credit they make an occasional phone call or send email on national issues, but when it comes to their own city they are disengaged except for complaining. 

Paying attention as I do to city action, there have been many times when community involvement and action ended in failure. The North Berkeley Neighborhood Alliance never quit. And they now have success under their belt to keep going. 

What a different country we would have if more of us followed the example of the North Berkeley Neighborhood Alliance and Friends of Adeline and engaged in our government instead of believing the nonsense on social media.  

There were other meetings this week, but they pale in the shadow of the special council meeting on the BART station housing projects. The Planning Commission did meet, but nothing was decided Wednesday evening. 

In other news: 

Don’t forget the state reading of ROE at the Brower Center next Sunday, June 12 at 5 pm and June 16th at the Marsh at 7 pm. I have already signed up for my free ticket. One little nicety is the tickets are through the Actors Ensemble of Berkeley and not evite. Seating is limited so don’t wait. All the details can be found at https://www.aeofberkeley.org/productions/upcoming-shows/378-roe-by-lisa-loomer 

As usual a close with my latest read. Through the 100 plus days of Russia’s war on Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is often compared to Churchill, so when The Splendid and the Vile by Erik Larson published in 2020 on WWII and Churchill’s first year as Prime Minister appeared as available from the library as an audiobook I grabbed it. The description of the book really sums it up best, “The Splendid and the Vile takes readers out of today’s political dysfunction and back to a time of true leadership, when in the face of unrelenting horror, Churchill’s eloquence, courage, and perseverance, bound a country and a family, together.” Much of the same description of courage in unrelenting horror can be said of Zelenskyy.

As a student at Berkeley High School, I can attest to the fact that it is a traumatic place for many this year, as for many years previous. Students are no more than a number at BHS, and we are all aware of this. Unless you possess positive contributive importance to your teachers and peers, such as humor or academic rigor, nobody will mind if you stop showing up. It is viewed to be a courteous act for teachers to inquire about well-being or call home when there is a dramatic shift in a student’s behavior. It takes nothing short of a student’s graphic death within a block of the school witnessed by many for there to be available school counselors during the day instead of a note that says “away!”, and even this was clarified to be only until the end of this year in an email from an administrator.  

BHS is a big school, drugs and poor mental health are bound to happen, and therefore they aren’t to be taken too seriously, the admin’s approach suggests. If you ask them, everything is far better than it was 30 years ago. In response to the most recent incident, in which a student in possession of parts to explosives and assault rifles planned mass homicide on campus, the administrator defensively responded via email once again that school the following day would take place and that the admin will continue perambulating the school’s premises “as we’ve been doing”. Sorry, even numerous middle-aged administrators in button downs will not stop a school shooting in physical presence, though they could in policy. Not to mention, as opposed to acknowledging mental health as being exceptionally low during this time, if you email the vast majority of the school counselors, you will, not an over-exaggeration, receive an automated response stating that they are busy, or as of the morning of the last day of school, they will be gone until next year, and will get to you eventually. If it’s an emergency you can call the suicide hotline.  

It is worth mentioning that there is a BHS health center, separate from school counselors. The prominent purpose is to offer resources and education on sexual health, though there are counselors to talk with. The problem is that in order to see these counselors a student must take the initiative to walk into the health center, ask for a counselor, completely open up to the counselor keeping in mind that they can report anything to the student’s guardian at their discretion, and then fill out the following paperwork to continue seeing the counselor, all on their own. A person who is struggling deeply will pragmatically not do this, but perhaps would with a referral, or a person to bring them. Most aren’t lucky enough to have this.  

According to NIH.Gov “People experience emotional disturbance, irritability, insomnia, depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms immediately after the quarantine period. These can last several months to three years”. On top of this, BHS is in downtown Berkeley, a place infamous for its poor mental health and drug abuse and homelessness, and highschoolers are taught to look away by most people. This is followed into school. Kids doing drugs in the bathrooms, fighting, lashing out, or not showing up to class are hurting, and the more they act out the more they are dismissed. I personally went from all A’s, sociable, and ambitious to failing and quiet this year, dealing with my own assortment of struggles, and all but one teacher, of whose subject I was the club president, checked in during class. Another student I talked to, who left BHS due to the lack of support, stated “I felt that teachers only cared about my grades when I stopped showing up. Once a teacher asked if I was depressed, but I don’t think he knew how to help.”  

I’ll spell it out. It's only going to get worse. This isn’t on the teachers, or the students. Mental health is a matter of life and death, not teenage drama, and it’s time to starve the ego and wake up, for clearly the resources being offered are not enough. It is only the admin who have the resources to allocate more funds to the health center and counselors, who have the resources to change the code of conduct, who have the resources to enact bi-weekly class discussion groups on mental health. Teachers working at such an intense school should receive training explicitly on student mental health. The solutions are endless, but instead the admin resolves to offer basic services which we should have already had.

This Thursday, June 2nd, is the big one: the all-important City Council vote on zoning the BART stations. On Thursday, please be a part of it - it's our last chance to influence the council’s vote. Here's what to do: 

1. Show up!  

At 4:45 PM attend an outdoor rally of all the Berkeley neighborhood groups that share our concerns, including North Berkeley Neighborhood Alliance, Friends of Adeline, Neighbors Not Towers, and Berkeley Together. There will be speakers (including famed artist Mildred Howard, whose mother led the fight to get BART undergrounded in Berkeley), signs, slogans to chant, and a creative surprise presentation. Don't miss it! Come take photos/videos, and post them to your favorite social media. 

Where: 1231 Addison Street, in front of where the City Council meets. 1231 Addison is at the back of the Berkeley Unified School District building and is just west of Bonar St. It is one block south of University Ave. 

2. Attend the 6 PM City Council meeting! 

It will be a long evening, so be prepared. There are two ways you can attend: 

In person: Enter the meeting room at 1232 Addison and wait to speak. Arrive early and reserve a seat in the meeting room (bring a sweater or something to hold your seat!). If you're attending the rally, do this before the rally starts. 

Proof of up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination or verified negative COVID-19 test is required, as well as wearing a mask, for in-person attendance.  

Online: Join online, raise your hand, have dinner and watch the Warriors while you wait your turn to speak. 

 

The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Ashby and North Berkeley Stations Transit Oriented Development Zoning fails to apply its own methodology correctly and violates the CEQA guidelines regarding the emissions associated with construction, especially at the proposed heights. As a result, the FEIR falsely claims that the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed zoning do not pass a threshold of significance. 

In fact, with errors corrected, the project's GHG impact will exceed the threshold of significance by quite a bit, requiring a fresh analysis of possible mitigation strategies. Fortunately, mitigation is feasible - but requires corrections to the FEIR. 

Council should not approve the existing FEIR. 

CEQA requires counting GHG emissions of building materials 

The manufacture of building materials, especially steel and concrete, also including the technical infrastructure of a building (pipes and conduits) is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions are counted as "embodied" in the resulting construction materials. 

Emissions are accounted as embodied in construction materials by adding together: 

• The emissions spent extracting raw materials. 

• Emissions for energy used while manufacturing materials. 

• Emissions from the chemical transformation of materials during manufacturing, particularly in cement manufacturing. 

• Emissions transferred to the material by the depreciation of the industrial machinary consumed during manufacture. 

There is an abundance of literature, including surveys of primary research, regarding the embodied costs of construction materials. There are no practical obstacles to estimating these costs in an EIR. The CEQA guidelines say, in fact, that those costs should be reported: 

"Energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used Energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used during construction, operation and/or removal of the project. If appropriate, this discussion should consider the energy intensiveness of materials and equipment required for the projectduring construction, operation and/or removal of the project. If appropriate, this discussion should consider the energy intensiveness of materials and equipment required for the project." – CEQA Guidlines Appendix F 

What the report found while ignoring construction materials 

The Final EIR ignores the GHG emissions associated with building materials (the flawed reason for this is given in the Final EIR and is critically examined later in this document). 

Even while ignoring a significant source of GHG emissions resulting from the project, the report claims that the project just scrapes by at, and not exceeding, the "threshold of significance" (meaning, the amount of emissions that would require deeper analysis of mitigation strategies in the EIR). 

First, the report calculates that if the amount of project emissions per year, per resident or employee, falls at 1.2 metric tons per year, the emissions do not cross a threshold of significance. 

Next, the report calculates (while ignoring building materials) that the projected emissions impact, amortized over 30 years, happens to be exactly 1.2 metric tons per year per served person (resident or employee). What a coincidence. 

Emissions from construction materials are significant 

If the 30-year amortized emissions associated with construction materials, per served person, on an annualized basis, exceed 100 kilograms (0.1 metric tons) , the project would imply a total 1.3 metric tons per person served per year: above the threshold of significance. 

In fact, for structures whose primary structural elements are steel and concrete, low end estimates of embodied emissions in construction materials start around 200 kilograms per square meter of floor space – twice as much as what it would take to drive the project past the threshold of significant emissions. 

Assuming a total 30 square meters of floor space per person served (including occupied space, common areas, and space associated with technical services), at 200kg per square meter, and amortized over 30 years, the project's annual footprint would rise by 200kg to a total of 1.4 metric tons per person served per year: 17% above the threshold of signifcance for almost 5,500 people. 

The identified threshold of significance is too high 

The report also fails at its own declared methodology by mistaking a 2030 emissions rate target with the target of emissions over 30 years. For example, project related emissions of even only 1.2 metric tons per person served, per year, is not at all compatible with the goals of the city and the state to lower emissions further every year thereafter, reaching approximately 0 in 2045. 

This is to say that even at the 1.2 tons per year estimate that's in the report, the project crosses the threshold of significance. 

Mitigations may be practical 

Emissions reductions are frequently touted as one of the promary aims of the project and of so-called "transit oriented design" in particular. 

BART and the city could require that specific proposals for the site, when applying the same emissions models as the EIR (though also correctly adding GHG emissions from construction materials) demonstrate footprints at or below 1.2 metric tons of emissions per served person per year by 2030, and fall appropriately quickly in subsequent years. This would lead to proposals making more appropriate (saner) selections of materials, heights, foundation requirements and so on. 

A glaring problem in the FEIR replies 

Comments on the Draft EIR included comments about the ommission of embodied carbon. These are discussed in "Topical Response C" of the FEIR, which begins: 

Recurring comments on this topic are summarized below, with responses following each. 

Some commenters suggested that the Draft EIR does not include an analysis of embodied carbon in building materials and other project components. 

The FEIR responds with a flood of nonsense. It asserts that project evaluation does not require analysis of the impact of resources consumed citing CA Code of Regulations title 14, section 15126.2 which in fact says the opposite. It asserts that changes to the global scale concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere has no local ecological impact. It even asserts that since the emissions inventory for Berkeley in 2005 did not include amortized costs of the emissions of earlier construction, therefore no analysis should be performed of the emissions costs proposed new construction. The response, dressed in obscure citations and misleading language, is simply nonsense: a bluff. 

In addition to that, if our goal is to implement existing law in a way that is consistent with protecting the survival of species, including our own, the embodied emissions of construction materials must be considered as it is known to be a very large portion of global emissions generally. 

Is the 12+ story alternative environmentally superior? 

The report fails to note the inevitable, large increase in per square meter embodied emissions costs of projects 12+ stories in height compared to alternatives such as high density, low rise alternatives. The per capita differences between low rise and high rise structures is very significant due to changes from lower carbon to higher carbon intensity construction materials. 

The main finding of the EIR in advising Berkeley's choices must be rejected. 

Conclusion and further issues 

I've focussed on one critical but narrow issue: the omission of consideration of omissions embedded in construction materials. I've pointed out that the omission is significant. 

The report also fails to consider critical climate adaptation concerns regarding heat islands, air flow, greenscape total area, site permeability, alternative uses of space in relation to improving sustainable transit access for all Berkeleyans, and timing relative to advances in efficiency. 

If council wants a (tenuous) legal excuse to encourage development without a care in the world for its impacts on human survival, they ought approve the FEIR. Otherwise, they ought not.

A teen suspected of trying to recruit other students to participate in a school shooting or bombing at Berkeley High School was arrested this week after turning himself in, police said Wednesday. 

Police received a tip on May 21 and searched the 16-year-old boy's home, where they found explosives components and assault rifles, several knives, and electronic items that could be used to create additional weapons, authorities said. 

According to a news release from police, investigators from the youth services unit took over the investigation and detectives interviewed witnesses, reviewed evidence and eventually obtained a warrant for the teen's arrest. 

Police also worked with Berkeley High staff and communicated with school district officials to keep them updated about safety information, police said. 

The teen turned himself in to Berkeley police on Monday and was arrested on suspicion of possessing destructive device materials and threatening to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury. 

"We recognize the impact this news may have on our community. School safety remains a high priority for the department," police said in the news release. 

Police didn't release any other information about the suspect, or how many students he tried to involve. 

The department has a school resource officer assigned to Berkeley High. In addition, all officers have access to a range of training and equipment that provide them the protection, skills and ability to rapidly respond to in-progress violence, police said. 

Anyone with information about the incident is asked to contact the department's Youth Services Unit at (510) 981-5715.

The Shattuck Cinemas are a cultural treasure for Berkeley residents and the wider East Bay. Pre-COVID, the Cinemas were drawing 275,00 to 300,000 ticket-buyers per year. In 2017, members of Save the Shattuck Cinemas gathered well over 4,000 signatures of movie goers with addresses from all over the East Bay—people attracted to spending time and money in our downtown thanks to the breadth and high quality of films to be seen at the Cinemas, unmatched by any other East Bay theater.  

The Cinemas represent a model of the intelligent and economically successful repurposing of architecture to a new use, something this commission should particularly appreciate—the former Hink's Department Store into the Shattuck Cinemas, with 1920s movie palace Egyptian and Moroccan interiors including hand-painted murals and ten screening rooms. 

The Cinemas have enlivened our downtown since 1984, bringing people in significant numbers to the streets and downtown cafes, restaurants, and shops as no residential high rise can do. And they enrich our cultural lives, not only with their beautifully-embellished interiors but in furtherance of the art of film. A great film cannot possibly be fully appreciated on a home screen or, I would add, in private. Film viewing has long been a communal experience. Neither the pandemic nor the advent of Netflix et al will displace the experience of seeing films with other viewers on a big screen.  

I hope the Landmarks Preservation Commission will reject a demolition permit that would allow a Chicago developer to destroy our great movie theater and deprive current and future Berkeley residents of this enriching experience. The developer should be required to preserve the theaters intact and to build above them. This is the best way to serve the interests of the residents of Berkeley. Our elected representatives should not sacrifice our historical and cultural resources to provide additional residential units downtown, where we need commercial and cultural attractions, especially when the great majority of these units serve new high-income residents, not the below-median income residents who are being forced out of Berkeley by escalating housing costs.

Have you filled out your ballot? Berkeley Citizens' Action (BCA) did NOT do endorsements for this year's primary. Instead, we are sharing the endorsements and recommendations from the following sources. At the end of this email, you can find information about these sources. 

• Alameda County Democratic Party
• Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club
• Berkeley Progressive Alliance
• Alameda County Greens
• Oakland Space Cat Voters
• Margot Smith
• Sheila Jordan

 

Statewide and Alameda County Dems have endorsed along Democratic party lines. Margot’s recommendations are Democratic Party endorsements. For most of the state and federal offices, the Peace and Freedom and Green Parties have created a Left Unity Slate. In this email, Left Unity candidates are denoted with a star (*) after their name. 

 

The Green Voter Guide and Oakland Space Cats note that Federal and some Statewide offices are fairly securely in the hands of Democrat Incumbents. However, please note the Secretary of State, State Controller and State Attorney General races are NOT held by incumbents. These are critical offices which must not go to a Republican! Your votes count. 

 

Local races are especially important. Voter turn-out is generally low in Primary Elections, fewer people are making these important decisions. For District Attorney and Sheriff's races, the election could be decided June 7th. If a candidate gets 50% +1 of the vote, that candidate alone moves to the November general election. We need your vote. 

 

Here is a summary of the recommendations we found: 

 

Federal Offices 

U.S. Senator, both "On Ballot and Partial/Unexpired Term" 

The US Senate seat is on the ballot twice: Alex Padilla was appointed to Kamala Harris's term when she became Vice President, so he must be elected by the voters to complete his current term. And, voters must choose who will get the second term. Padilla previously was twice elected Secretary of State. Democrats have endorsed Incumbent Senator Alex Padilla; Margot Smith will also vote for him. 

Alameda County Greens and Oakland Space Cats recommend the Left Unity candidate John Thompson Parker*. 

 

U.S. Representative, District 12: 

Democrats endorse Barbara Lee. Margot Smith will vote for her. 

Greens gives the nod to Glen Kaplan, "with reservations" which you can read about in the Green Voter Guide. 

 

Statewide Races 

Governor:  

Statewide and AC Democrats, and Oakland Space Cat Voters as well as Margot Smith support Incumbent Gavin Newsom. The Irreverent Space Cats Voter Guide gives Newsom the thumbs up with their "Gold Plated Turd" award, saying Newsom assured passage of "Statewide Rent Control, and negotiated with the legislature to reduce the allowable rent increase, adding "if meh, then Luis Javier Rodriguez." 

Luis Javier Rodriguez* is the candidate endorsed by Pace and Freedom and the Greens. Rodriguez is a Green Party member and a major figure in contemporary Chicano literature, as well as a community & urban peace activist. 

 

Lieutenant Governor: 

Dems endorse incumbent Eleni Kounalakis, the first woman elected Lt. Governor of California, as does Margot Smith. 

Greens, Peace & Freedom and Oakland Space Cat Voters recommend Mohammad Arif*, an immigrant legal advocate and chair of the Kern County Peace and Freedom party. 

 

Secretary of State:  

Shirley Nash Weber, the first Black state constitutional officer in California’s 170-year history, was nominated by Newsom and sworn in 2021. Dems and Margot Smith recommend her. 

Sacramento area teacher and Green Party member Gary N. Blenner*, is recommended by The Greens, Peace & Freedom and Oakland Space Cats. 

 

Controller:  

Malia Cohen, elected to the State Board of Equalization in 2018, its current chair, and the first African American woman on the Board, is now running for State Controller, since current controller Betty Yee is terming out. Dems endorse Malia Cohen, as does Margot Smith. The Greens, Peace & Freedom and Oakland Space Cats recommend long term Green Party member Laura Wells*. 

 

Treasurer: 

Fiona Ma is running for her second term as State Treasurer. She is the first woman of color and the first woman Certified Public Accountant (CPA) elected to the position. Dems and Margot Smith endorse her. The Greens, Peace & Freedom and Space Cats endorse Peace and Freedom Party member Meghann Adams*. 

 

Attorney General:  

Although Dems have held the office of attorney general since 1999, the LA Times calls this race, "The most contentious and closely watched California election in 2022." 

Rob Bonta was appointed AG in 2021, after serving as Assembly member for District 18 (Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro) since 2012. He was the first person of Filipino descent to serve in the Assembly and AG office. Dems, Oakland Space Cats and Margot Smith endorse Bonta. Space Cats Voter Guide says "Bob was the first and continually strongest voice in the state legislature for expanding rent control." Greens and Peace & Freedom endorse Green Dan Kapelovitz*. 

 

Insurance Commissioner:  

Incumbent Ricardo Lara is running for re-election. He is endorsed by Dems and Margot Smith. 

Socialist Nathalie Hrizi*, a SF area organizer, is endorsed by the Greens, Peace & Freedom and Space Cats as well as the Party of Socialism and Liberation. 

 

Superintendent of Public Instruction: 

Incumbent Tony Thurmond, who was narrowly elected Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2018, spent decades working for non-profits serving youth, and is a former Assembly member for District 14, school board member and council member. He is endorsed by Democratic parties and supported by Margot Smith. 

Alameda County Greens and Oakland Space Cats endorse Marco Amaral, a San Diego area special ed teacher, school board member and teachers union president. 

 

Board of Equalization, District 2:  

Sally Lieber, a Mountain View City Councilwoman (and former mayor), and former assembly member for the 22nd District, is running for the position currently held by Malia Cohen, the 2022 Democrat candidate for Controller. Dems and Margot Smith are for Lieber, and the AC Greens says Lieber is preferred, but not endorsed for this race. 

 

Superior Court Judges 

There are three county court commissioners running uncontested for full judgeships on the Alameda County Superior Court. All three judges are highly experienced. 

 

Office #1: Tamiza Hockenhull, a woman of color who was born, raised and educated in Alameda County, is running unopposed for an open seat. She is endorsed by AC Dems, AC Greens and Oakland Space Cats, as well as Margot Smith. 

 

Office #12: Pelayo Llamas is now running unopposed, after the incumbent withdrew his bid for reelection. An 30-year Oakland resident, Llamas is the son of first-generation immigrants, who worked his way through college and law school. He is also endorsed by AC Dems, AC Greens and Oakland Space Cats, as well as Margot Smith. 

 

Office #21: Michael Bishay, who specializes in family law, is also now running unopposed, after the incumbent withdrew her bid for reelection. He is endorsed by AC Dems andMargot smith. Bishay didn't submit a questionnaire to AC Greens, so they did not endorse him. Oakland Space Cats declined to endorse. 

 

County Races 

Superintendent of Schools: 

Alysse Castro, executive director of county schools in San Francisco, is running against incumbent L.K. Monroe. Castro is endorsed by Wellstone Democratic Club, AC Greens and Oakland Space Cat Voters. Margot Smith supports her, as does former Superintendent of Schools Sheila Jordan, who says Castro, "who is running for my old seat as a progressive, is supported by labor CTA and CFT. AC Dems made no endorsement for this race. 

 

School Board, Area 7 (East County):  

Cheryl Cook-Kallio, 40-year veteran public school teacher, and former Pleasanton council member is endorsed by AC Dems. AC Greens didn’t endorse her but says don't vote for Dillie or Dao. 

 

Supervisor, District 2: Incumbent Richard Valle was born and raised in this district (Hayward, Union City, Newark, Fremont). He is President/CEO of Tri-CED Community Recycling, a non-profit recycling company. He is endorsed by AC Dems. AC Greens made no endorsement, please see write-up. 

 

Supervisor, District 3:  

Rebecca Kaplan is currently a council member and Vice Mayor of Oakland. She is running for the open seat that held by Wilma Chan until Chan’s untimely death in Nov 2021. Chan’s chief of staff, Dan Brown, was appointed to replace her, but hasn't lived in D3 long enough to run for election. Kaplan is endorsed by AC Dems, Wellstone, Oakland Space Cat Voters and AC Greens (with reservations). 

 

Assessor:  

Phong La is the unopposed incumbent. He was endorsed by AC Dems and is supported by Margot Smith. AC Greens made no endorsement. 

 

Auditor-Controller/Clerk-Recorder:  

Melissa Wilk is the unopposed incumbent. She was endorsed by AC Dems and is supported by Margot Smith. AC Greens made no endorsement. 

 

District Attorney:  

Pamela Price has a very strong legal background and commitment to civil rights, and supports bail reform. She is endorsed by the Wellstone Democratic Club, Oakland Space Cat Voters, Berkeley Progressive Alliance, AC Greens (with reservations) and also recommended by Margot Smith. Sheila Jordan recommends Seth Seward. AC Dems did not make an endorsement in this race. 

 

Sheriff/Coroner:  

This is the first competitive election for Sheriff in more than three decades. Incumbent Greg Ahern seeks his 5th term, challenged by two highly qualified law endorsement professionals, both women of color, who think Alameda county voters are ready for a change. 

 

Yesenia Sanchez, who is in charge of Santa Rita, is endorsed by AC Dems and AC Greens. Wellstone Dems made a dual endorsement for Sanchez and Walker. 

 

Joann Walker, a veteran SF police officer, has the support of Berkeley Progressive Alliance, Margot Smith and Oakland Space Cat Voters, who says "it's a big deal if Walker beats Greg Ahern, and as long as Ahern doesn't get 50% of the vote in the primary, the top two voter getters will go onto the general election in November. 

 

Treasurer/Tax Collector:  

Incumbent Henry Levy is running unopposed. is endorsed by AC Dems, and Margot Smith will vote for him. AC Greens decline to endorse. 

 

Measures 

Oakland Measure C — Extends a 1994 Library Parcel Tax. Oakland Space Cat Voters endorsed with with standard parcel tax reservations. 

 

Where to Vote: 

Drop in a mail box, ballot must be postmarked by June 7th. You may want to walk into a post office and ask them to hand cancel your ballot. No Stamps Needed. 

 

Drop off at a Ballot Drop Box, Open 24 hours 

• Berkeley Civic City Center, 2180 Milvia St,
• UC Berkeley, between Sather Gate and Architects & Engineers Building
• Frances A. Recreation Center, 2800 Park St,
• Claremont Branch Public Library, 2940 Benvenue Ave.
• North Branch Public Library, 1170 The Alameda
• West Branch Berkeley Public Library, 1125 University Ave

 

Go to the Berkeley VOTE CENTER, at 1011 University Ave 

Hours: May 28th to June 6th, 9am to 5p; June 7th (Election Day) 7am to 8pm 

For voters who live in Alameda County. Vote in-person, drop off a Vote by Mail Ballot, get help, or register to vote and vote in the same day. 

 

Deliver your ballot, get a ballot, register to vote or get help at one of these 9 Accessible Voting Locations in Berkeley. 

Hours: June 4th - June 6th, 9 am to 5 pm and Election Day, June 7th, 7 am to 8 pm 

• Berkeley High Gym, 1980 Allston Way
• Ed Roberts Campus, 3075 Adeline St
• Life Adventist Church, 2236 Parker St
• Shepard of the Hills Lutheran Church, 4012 Grizzly Peak
• Epworth United Methodist Church, 1953 Hopkins St
• Longfellow School Gym, 1522 Ward St
• Berkeley Adult School, 1701 San Pablo Ave
• Willard Middle School, 2425 Stuart St.

 

Sources for our research: 

We looked at the following organizations and individuals endorsements and recommendations for the June Ballot: 

 

The Alameda County Democratic Party coordinates the party’s activities throughout the county, making endorsements, organizing events and directs resources to support local, state and national candidates. www.http://acdems.org 

 

Alameda County Green Voter Guide: The Green Party of Alameda County with over 6,900 registered members has been active for more than 20 years. They publish a carefully researched analysis of candidates and issues. See the current guide here. https://acgreens.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/gpac-vg-06-22-web-1.pdf 

 

Berkeley Progressive Alliance includes East Bay organizations, coalitions, labor, and elected leaders. Its purpose is to promote progressive legislation, policy, and political agendas within the City of Berkeley. email: info@berkeleyprogressivealliance.org 

 

The Guild Of Oakland Space Cat Voters says they want to help us all make less bad voting decisions. They are artists and activists who review and discuss candidates and issues, look at other endorsements, then produce an irreverent digital and print Voter Guide aimed at younger voters. https://twitter.com/spacecatvoters 

 

Margot Smith is a retired social scientist. She was convener of the Berkeley Gray Panthers, a founder and current steering committee member of Berkeley Progressive Alliance, and a member of Berkeley Citizens Action's Steering Committee and the Wellstone Club. During election seasons, she shares "How Margot is Voting" to her large email list. email: margots999@aol.com 

 

The Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club is composed of East Bay progressive individuals working together to advance an agenda of economic, racial, and social justice; environmental sustainability; and peace. They endorse and help to elect candidates who will represent these values in public office. www.wellstoneclub.org 

 

Election Notes from the Ella Baker Center: 

In California, you can legally register to vote up to the day of the election, meaning you can register on June 7, 2022, at your polling location and get an absentee ballot. Voters have until 8 PM on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, to vote in the June Primary Election. 

 

You can also vote if you are formerly or currently incarcerated, even if you are on parole or probation. As long as you are not currently serving time in a prison and already sentenced for a conviction – you can vote in California! This includes individuals in county jails. 

 

Click here to Track your Ballot, so you know it was received and counted. 

Dear Mayor Arreguin and Councilmembers:

As you consider bond measures to place on the November ballot (May 31 agenda, items 37 and 39), I have one plea: Please give me at least one clean measure that I can vote for in good conscience.

Please don’t even think about combining essential and prestige projects into “one big bond” that voters will be forced to vote down (The staff report’s “Option 1”). Please don’t even think about staff’s “Option 2,” nor about the potential combinations that Councilmember Droste helpfully listed in her May 27 newsletter: “repaving and street safety,” or “housing and disaster/climate resiliency.”

Please offer voters at least four separate bond measures, allowing us to vote for things we believe in: 

1. Affordable-housing creation – to reverse displacement, get people off the street, and help all Berkeley residents live in dignity. Note that this goal received by far the highest survey support (58%, more than twice its nearest competitor).
2. Needed repairs to aging infrastructure, with no changes to street configuration or any other legacy assets. (Second-most popular goal in the survey, at 27%.)
3. Narrowly-defined climate and wildfire mitigations – like utility undergrounding. If Berkeley needs to start building a seawall, that would go here.
4. All the virtue-signaling, counterproductive “traffic safety” and “climate friendly” novelties that the Deputy Public Works Director and Transportation staff want to dream up. This measure, alone, would authorize laying lots more concrete for these expensive follies. (Bearing in mind that cement production generates some 10% of global CO2 emissions. “Improving pedestrian, bike, and traffic safety” got only 11% support in the survey – and that’s optimistically, unrealistically assuming that staff’s terribly designed interventions would actually improve net safety, not degrade it.)

Berkeley residents have been very generous in voting to tax themselves for one “infrastructure” bond after another – and we keep getting less infrastructure. Streets are blocked for months or years to create pointless, costly prestige projects. Or they’re permanently compromised, in ways that reduce nonmotorists' safety, while increasing traffic congestion (and therefore CO2 emissions). 

This is why many of us voters have concluded that next time we’re offered another broad, ill-defined, infrastructure bond measure, we must adopt the Roger Daltrey (of The Who) policy: We won’t get fooled again. 

Please don’t give us no option apart from rejecting an omnibus bond measure that would fund new mischief. Please don’t make us actively campaign against a catch-all measure, taking down needed priorities (like affordable housing) along with the nutty, destructive stuff. 

To understand this plea, consider two recent (bond-supported) “infrastructure improvement” projects that current Councilmembers idealistically embraced, only to watch rogue staff and consultant actions turn them into fiascos: 

• A “Milvia bikeway” plan turned into a bizarre new iron curtain of concrete barriers – which the public was never warned about – and worsened cycling. Northbound cyclists now have southbound cars racing right at us, which is terrifying. A safe, convenient cycling street has become a nightmare.
• A Hopkins “placemaking” and street-safety effort devolved into a controversial “two-way cycletrack” design that even neighborhood cyclists opposed. Residents and merchants alike widely oppose staff’s unworkable, unnecessary, bizarre plan to remove almost all street parking.

Consider also some bond-supported “infrastructure improvement” projects that obliged our former Mayor Bates' imperial dreams: 

• Allston Way between Berkeley High and City Hall was torn up for months, snarling downtown circulation. This was to lay a permeable-pavement “demonstration project” on a single block. Net environmental impact: Sharply negative.
• Hearst St. from Oxford to Euclid was torn up to remove dozens of parking spaces, which UCB visitors, students, and faculty/staff had relied on for campus access, and for load-in/load-out of equipment and instruments. This was all to create a wide eastbound bicycle lane on Hearst’s south side – just a few yards beside a superb on-campus bike path that UC students and Berkeley residents had happily cycled on for generations. Even today, rogue cyclists menace pedestrians on the sidewalk, right beside their shiny new bike lane.
• Shattuck from University to Allston Way was torn up for 3-½ years for “pedestrian, cyclist, and transit improvements” that made life hell for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. I was nearly killed by a suddenly opened truck door, while biking down a Shattuck Ave. that was strangled down to one lane by parked construction equipment on both sides. The same contractors that were payed to widen sidewalks were apparently paid to narrow them, just a few months later. The end result: Shattuck from University to Center St. is dramatically less safe for pedestrians, because we now have to watch for traffic from multiple directions instead of just one. The only beneficiaries of this debacle were one-percenter public works contractors. And no one has taken accountability for the mess.

Finally, consider some of the contemplated “infrastructure improvements” that voters already know that a new omnibus bond would fund: 

• Artificially narrowing Adeline St. and MLK Blvd., to as little as one lane in each direction, to appease a few extreme car-hating ideologues who’ve dominated “Adeline Corridor” planning. Years of construction hell, followed by permanently strangled Route 24 access into and out of Berkeley.
• Artificially narrowing San Pablo Ave. (already chronically congested) to add bicycle lanes – right beside the two continuous, low-stress bike routes available just a block away, on lightly trafficked Tenth St. and Curtis/Matthews Streets.

Faced with a broad, unrestricted “infrastructure” bond that would subsidize lots more disasters like these, many Berkeley voters will conclude that our only option is to follow The Who’s advice: Get down on our knees and pray that we don’t get fooled again. And the only way to ensure that will be to vote against the whole package. 

To quote one of Berkeley’s most distinguished residents ever: “There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious…that 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…and…make it stop.” 

Thank you for considering the above arguments for giving voters a “cafeteria” choice of four clean bonds – allowing majorities to vote for the priorities we believe in, with a clean conscience.

Don't miss this: an excellent article analyzing the "grow, grow,grow" theory::

California loses population: Communities push back against growth mandate madness

Well, it looks like the Chron has finally gotten the memo. Perhaps someone there even reads the Planet.

On Tuesday of this week, their resident "urban design critic" John King, who lives in Berkeley for his sins, took official notice of the fact that the city is being overrun with Ugly Boxes. Well, he didn't quite admit that, but the net sentiment he expressed is close. Here's his take on what's happening, such as it is:

Berkeley has a downtown housing boom right now. It’s going to transform the city’s character

Yes. As usual, the comments (hard to find) tell the story. Two of my faves:

"Witness Neoliberal crony capitalism's version of Stalin's Five Year Plans", That''s undoubtedly from a genuine Cal graduate.

And another good one called the prevailing style "applique architecture", which I take to mean Ugly Boxes with Some Fancy Stuff Outside.

But here's the breakthrough: In the same issue the good old Chron actually ran an op-ed by someone who brings facts and analysis to the topic. We've told you before about Professor Davarian Baldwin, and here in print he spotlights the major culprit in the "transformation of Berkeley's character" to Boring Boxland.

Read it and weep.

How UC Berkeley has used public power to become a private developer

By the way, if these links don't get you through the Chronicle's pay wall, a Berkeley Public Library card will give you online access to that and many other publications.
 

The April 24 letter to Hahn

Speaking at the council’s May 10 meeting, Monterey Fish owner Paul Johnson concluded by stating that the merchants are “pretty much on the same side as the Hopkins residents.” He was referring to people living on or near Hopkins who had organized a protest over the bike lanes.

On April 24, Hahn received an open letter signed by neighbors, merchants, and customers of the shops in the area. Cc’d to the entire council and posted on the Planet, the letter was also included in the packet sent to the council on May 6. Johnson is the second of the letter’s 118 signatories. (A longtime resident of north Berkeley and patron of the Hopkins-Monterey businesses, I also signed.)

The letter argues that “[t]he two-way bike track should be flatly rejected as way too dangerous for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists alike,” citing the same factors as the ones noted by the dissident cyclists, most of whom also signed the letter. The letter, too, recommends repaving the street, “which by itself improves conditions for cyclists.” 

It notes that staff professed ignorance about the volume of bicycle traffic on Hopkins, and that “the intersection of Monterey and Hopkins is not on the city’s annual bike usage survey.” That intersection, the letter contends, “is [t]he most unsafe area in the corridor”—“unsafe for everyone, but mostly for pedestrians” and above all to children, the elderly, and the disabled. The danger comes from reckless drivers who fail to yield to people on foot and “dangerously nose into the crosswalks to try to find their own opportunities to pass through”; and from “bikers who blow through the intersection.” 

It follows that pedestrian safety “should be the primary focus” of any plan to reconfigure Hopkins. Accordingly, the letter recommends doing “the non-controversial things (restriping, additional cross walks and stop signs), and any safety measures that could be easily and cheaply reversed if, upon reflection, it becomes clear that something else would serve everyone better (painting sharrows, for example). 

The letter also flags the removal of parking. As of April 24, staff had “yet to answer the question of how many parking spots will be lost.” The authors of the letter counted a minimum of 35 spaces, including all parking spots on both sides of Hopkins from Monterey to Gilman. They note that that there are many apartments and condos on the street, some of which have two or three bedrooms but “less than one parking spot per unit.” None have more than one spot. The apartment at the corner of Hopkins and Hopkins Court has eight units and no off-street parking at all. 

As of April 6, neither Hahn nor staff had not suggested where residents who will lose their parking are going to park. Since then, they’ve been no more forthcoming on that matter and the other concerns raised in the letter. 

Emailing Transportation staff 

Threaded through the April 24 letter are complaints about staff’s repeated failure to answer questions from the public. Like the merchants’ objections, those complaints belie the claim in the May 10 staff report that “[t]he proposed design concept was developed through a robust public and stakeholder engagement process.” In fact, the process afforded zero opportunity for meaningful exchange between the planners and the public at large. 

People were offered three ways to participate. First, they could email the members of the Project Team, Beth Thomas, Principal Planner in the Transportation Division, and Ryan Murray, Associate Planner, Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs. 

Murray responded to my emailed queries. I’ve been told that he also replied to others, except when asked about the number of parking spaces slated for removal, a question I never posed. 

My exchanges with Murray’s senior colleague, Beth Thomas, were an exercise in aggravation. 

Staff conducted three online “Community Workshops”: one in October 2020, a second in March 2021, and a third in October 2021; three online “Community Meetings” in early 2022; and a meeting devoted to the Alameda-Hopkins intersection on May 2, 2022. 

As should be clear by now, the Hopkins project is complex. In order for members of the public to participate in an informed fashion, they needed to see the materials to be presented beforehand. We never did. 

On March 5, 2021, five days before the second workshop, I emailed Thomas. After stating that I had registered for the upcoming meeting, I asked: “Could you please provide links to any materials that staff will be presenting? Thank you.” 

Four days later, Thomas replied: 

“I hope you received the Zoom link by now to tomorrow evening’s meeting. We’re still putting the finishing touches on the presentation materials, but plan to post them on the project website later this week after the meeting. Thanks for your interest in this study, and I hope to see you at the meeting.” 

No apology—indeed, no acknowledgment of my request. 

I emailed back: 

“Thanks, Beth. It’s all very well to post the materials after meeting, but they ought to be posted before the meeting so that participants have an opportunity to reflect on them and prepare their remarks. If the materials aren’t ready before the meeting, then the meeting ought to be re-scheduled at a later date.” 

Thomas did not reply. 

I made the same request before the third workshop, held on October 28, 2022, and got another brush-off. I gave up. 

The Zoomed meetings 

The second vehicle of public participation in the Hopkins planning process was Zoom. 

As a vehicle of democratic decisionmaking, Zoom is inherently problematic. Key aspects of communication are dictated by the hosts—in this case, city staff. For example, the hosts decide whether to use a Zoom format that offers members of the public the option to make themselves visible. The format used for the first three virtual meetings included that option; the one used for the last four did not. 

At one of the meetings held in early 2022, undated on the transcript that the city provided in response to my Public Records Act request, Chris Howell thanked the staff and consultants “for all the hard work so far.” Then he wrote: “Can’t see any of the community attendees? Is that on purpose?” 

Consultant Janet Chang, responded: “Hi Chris. This is a Zoom webinar format rather than a typical Zoom meeting, which is why you can’t see any other participants.” 

Translation: Yes, it was intentional. 

The crucial, unasked question: Why did you choose the Big Brotherish format? 

Another way that Zoom impedes democratic participation is that the hosts decide whether to use a format that offers the Chat and Q&A functions. The format used for the first six meetings offered those functions; the one chosen for the May 2 meeting about the Alameda-Hopkins intersection did not. 

Even if the chosen Zoom format does include Chat and Q&A, the hosts select the questions and comments to which they will respond. Moreover, genuine dialogue requires follow-up. The public had no opportunity to respond via Zoom to staff’s responses, and as the April 24 letter indicated, post-Zoom follow-up was spotty. 

That said, some of the staff responses to selected questions that were posted in the available Q&A and Chat sidebars were revealing. Unfortunately, on April 26, the original date of the council action on the Hopkins project, the questions and responses posted in Q&A and Chat were taken offline along with the tapes of the workshops and community meetings. The online records contain only the staff presentations. 

On March 24, I emailed Murray, asking why the tapes were going to be deleted. Here’s his reply: 

“The presentation pdf themselves will remain for archival purposes, but the recordings will be taken down. With the City's new policies on what we are to post to the website, it has to be "actionable" by a member of the public. So, pre-Council meeting, the recordings serve as context to the pdf's and serve to educate the public. The potential "action" for the public is to then give public comment at the Council meeting. Post- 

Council meeting, there is no more action for the public, and thus the recordings will be removed. As stated above, the pdfs will remain as record of the engagement process with the project. Historically, it was not even standard practice to post any recordings of these types of engagement meetings to the project website, but we are all trying new and unique ways of engagement here in the pandemic era.” 

The potential for public action on a matter is a peculiar criterion for retaining public records. Erase such records after the council has acted, and you limit understanding of the history that led up to that action. Moreover, after the council has acted, the public is still capable of its own action. 

On the morning of May 23, I emailed Berkeley’s Public Information Officer, Matthai Chakko, asking for a link to the council action that approved the “City’s new policies” on what staff is to post to the city’s website. Chakko emailed back at end of the same day: There’s some miscommunication here. The links to the recordings will be added to the Hopkins project.” 

Indeed, two hours earlier, Murray had sent me this email, presumably issued in response to a query from Chakko: 

“Apologies for the delay - I am backed up with multiple projects but heard you were asking for the recordings of our final zoom webinars. See the links below. Thanks for your patience while we update our website. 

Webinar #1: https://us06web.zoom.us/rec/play/DCFyWNxNB0F9YHMbSIQ2YDhNBRLqIb0cfbkl67lOAmtkUyhJZdhm-At53doouo-6dw7bs7TUTSlQtEOo.m_Ky3oEd0yUj8R_J 

Webinar #2: https://us06web.zoom.us/rec/play/glc4yaQBEHBVsXM-oT01fxWBMXpemrLwi-RXDfDsPKkIMVVOvYv5nxTnCbJZvc3wA3kUzPixOJOMWt7R.ONlx51vs73I04mLO 

Webinar #3: https://us06web.zoom.us/rec/play/IaGI2IgTYfNjpFiqL09ZeiZwQWHYMAruIpLXThdq27-q_Wciu7jFAGygxnAJ6HCM1_9WzP3oY7Kt7duD.Uz8kSst2bjIHWt6-” 

I replied: “Thanks, Ryan. What about the comments and staff responses posted in the Chat and Q&A sidebars?” 

Murray emailed back: 

“Those were never posted publicly, but I see no reason why I can't produce those for you - are you ok with me including them in your PRA for the Social Pinpoint comments [see below] you've requested? I am working on redacting all the personally identifying information so it just takes me a bit of time.” 

As of June 6, the online records of the virtual meetings still contain only the staff presentations. As for the Social Pinpoint comments, read on. 

The Social Pinpoint exercise 

Social Pinpoint was the third option for public participation was what is described in the May 10 staff report as “[a] virtual crowd-sourcing platform” that 

“was used to solicit specific public comment on the proposed near- and long-term design options and placemaking opportunities. The public was invited to participate in the Social Pinpoint exercise for approximately five weeks after the workshop. Over 700 individual comments were recorded from the Social Pinpoint exercise over the 5-week period.” 

I didn’t participate in that exercise, and I haven’t spoken to anyone did. In researching this article, I Googled “Social Pinpoint.” Up came the website of the sponsoring company, PLACED. The homepage carries this introduction: 

“Social Pinpoint provides a flexible suite of digital tools to enhance your community and stakeholder engagement….With a highly experienced team of online engagement experts to provide training, support, and guidance on best practice, we ensure you achieve optimal project outcomes.” 

Under “Company,” we read: “People will always be affected by change, which is why the power of community engagement goes beyond a one-way conversation.” 

This is mostly marketing gibberish, but the idea of going beyond a one-way conversation is spot-on. Unfortunately, whether anyone who engaged in the Social Pinpoint exercise on Hopkins got that far and what sort of conversation, if any, occurred is a mystery to the general public. Staff never posted any of the 700 comments or indicated whether or how they influenced the final conceptual design. 

My May 7 PRA request 

On May 7, I submitted a California Public Records Act request to the city asking to see “all documents concerning the exercise, including but not limited to contracts between the city and PLACED/Social Pinpoint, communications between PLACED/Social Pinpoint and city staff, the 700 individual comments, and any staff responses to those comments, any feedback analysis or metrics that staff derived from those comments, and any communications between staff and any member of the city council regarding this exercise and its outcomes.” 

Regardless of the city’s response, the problem with Social Pinpoint, at least as it was used for the Hopkins project, is that, it further privatized what ought to have been a public and collective exchange. Democratic decisionmaking requires an open, collective format that allows members of a community to share their views with each other and to respond to those views. 

On May 24, I emailed City Clerk Mark Numainville the following message: 

“The attached email from Transportation planner Ryan Murray states that in response to my PRA request to see the 700 comments on the Hopkins Corridor project that Transportation staff purportedly received via the Social Pinpoint exercise, staff are ‘redacting all the personally identifying information’ before providing the comments. 

The Social Pinpoint exercise was part of what staff described as ‘a robust public engagement and stakeholder process’ on the project (see Item 33 on council’s 5/10/22 agenda). The exercise was never presented nor should it have been conducted as a vehicle of private correspondence between members of the public and City staff. What, then, is the legal rationale for redacting personally identifying information from the comments?” 

In reply, I received several emails from paralegal Keith Nesbit alluding to the legal precedents for such redaction. 

Oddly, then, on May 27, I received three documents, all snippets of undated Chat exchanges, none of which I’d formally asked to see, that contain personally identifying information. 

On May 27, I also received a page of results from a Social Pinpoint survey open from October 26, 2021, to December 1, 2021, regarding preferred style of bench seating (contemporary, historic, or outlier), “playful sculpture seating,” bicycle rack, color of paving (should it “match the rose-colored concrete paving at the North Branch Library?”), public art, and “low water landscaping.” 

Also in the May 27 packet were undated four maps of Berkeley sprinkled with purple dots indicating density of either support of opposition for an unspecified matter. Where the density is great, it’s impossible to count the dots. 

Missing from the May 27 packet were the contract between the city and PLACED/Social Pinpoint, communications between city staff and PLACED, staff responses to the Pinpoint responses, and any communications between staff and councilmembers regarding the exercise and its outcomes. 

On May 31 asked the city to clarify the meaning of the maps and to provide the remaining documents I’d requested. Nesbit replied that he had “reached out to provide the contracts” and would “provide [them] within the statutory response period.” 

The California Public Records Act requires public agencies to respond in writing to a request within ten days. If necessary, an agency may take an additional two weeks to provide the requested documents. It’s now a month since I submitted my request on May 7. 

Whose fault? 

At the May 10 council meeting, the only member of the council who mentioned that “a lot of neighbors” had complained about staff non-responsiveness was Councilmember Kate Harrison. “I don’t want to put down their idea that this process was flawed,” she said. 

Harrison attributed the failings to Covid-induced constraints. “You’re on a computer screen, you don’t see anyone else, you’re given only one minute to speak.” 

To be sure, a digitally facilitated gathering cannot replicate the immediacy and open-endedness of a face-to-face meeting. (Caveat: At many in-person meetings of the Berkeley city council, members of the public are given only one minute to speak.) 

But the virtual formats—email, Zoom, and Social Pinpoint—were not the source of the problems detailed above. I’ve been on Zoomed meetings with more than a hundred people where everyone who wished to be seen by others was visible; where pertinent materials were posted before the meeting; where people were given more than one minute to speak; and where there was a chance for follow-up during the meeting. If anything, the online media, including in this case the city’s website, should facilitate, not impede, the posting of public information. 

The failings of the Hopkins social engagement process were the fault of the people who ran it. 

---

Part One: Placebreaking on Hopkins Street:
A Dossier Zelda Bronstein 05-22-2022 

Part Two, Hopkins Dossier: Bike Lanes and Business Zelda Bronstein 05-28-2022

Are we insane? Has America fallen into a downward spiral of moral decay? Has excessive greed and lust for power replaced our basic sense of decency? Do we need terrifying assault weapons swung over our shoulders to bolster our collective insecurity? I write this letter with my hands shaking with anger and tears running down my face.

I write this scathing attack on lawmakers who remain unmoved while 10 beautiful African-American kids were gunned down in Buffalo New York? And an additional 19 beautiful children and two of their teachers were murdered at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas by a teenager filled with uncontrollable rage. Why did the social media company that witnessed the gunman’s death threats not alert law enforcement?

Why did law enforcement officers who were fully trained for a hostage situation not take immediate action but waited 78 minutes before a police officer defied orders, entered the classroom and shot the killer? Law enforcement had all the equipment to neutralize the assassin much sooner.

Did they really have to wait for a janitor to open the door of the classroom? Why were they paralyzed with fear? Many of the trapped 10-year-olds were feverishly calling 911 for help but were greeted by the police dispatcher who dismissed the grave urgency. Precious seconds passed while the gunman satisfied his insatiable lust for killing and another beautiful child breathed no more.

There is a special place in hell for manufacturers of weapons of war and their enablers in state legislators and Congress who put their careers and NRA profits over the lives of America’s most vulnerable school children.

What happened to local swat teams who are fully trained to rapidly neutralize such threats? There must be full accountability for this gross dereliction of duty. The police chief should be fired and the people of Texas must demand the immediate resignation of Governor Greg Abbot. He is an absolute disgrace to society.

The only hero in this horrific saga was a Border Patrol Tactical Unit officer who disregarded orders from local police not to engage, entered the classroom, and shot the gunman.

Colonel Steve McCraw, the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, must resign. 50-plus extra state troopers waited in vain to engage but were ordered to desist.

Governor Greg Abbott, who’s undergone seven or eight mass shootings in his tenure, has done nothing but give greater access to militarized weaponry. His seminal attempt to fix things in 2019 was to provide greater access to AR-15’s in Texas than it is to buy baby formula.

Editor's Note: The latest issue of the Pepper Spray Times is now available.

You can view it absolutely free of charge by clicking here . You can print it out to give to your friends.

Grace Underpressure has been producing it for many years now, even before the Berkeley Daily Planet started distributing it, most of the time without being paid, and now we'd like you to show your appreciation by using the button below to send her money.

This is a Very Good Deal. Go for it! 

One thing is as clear today as it was in the earliest days of People's Park. People's Park is significant from every conceivable angle. It's as though the park is a historical, architectural, ecological, and cultural prism that insists on being more than a park can possibly be, a significance one hopes is beginning to dawn on the UC regents and the Berkeley City Council.

Even now the park is saturated with the people whose housing and human needs are ignored by the mayor and council's insistence that market rate projects will someday make room for the people dislocated from the low-income housing bulldozed to build them, and that inadequate, temporary shelter in humiliating circumstances is worth trading in one's autonomy and safety. These two chimeras are still waved aloft by local leadership just as clearly as People's Park demonstrates their bankruptcy.

People's Park set Ronald Reagan on his path to his presidency. People's Park is where August Vollmer's famed 1908 effort to professionalize policing met an equally powerful, now nationwide grassroots effort to make policing accountable. People's Park is where the first university accredited, participatory, community-run native plant garden brought together master gardeners, acolytes of Jim Roof, students, hippies, and anyone with a shovel and an interest.  

People's Park is a monument to peace in a world still at war over monuments to war, an unruly cultural garden threatened by a nuclear weapons contractor trying to impersonate a school. The People's Park Historic District Advocacy Group which documented the trees, the plants, the birds, the cultural shifts born in the park's river of creation, succeeded in getting unanimous affirmation from the California Historic Resources Commission and an affirmative listing on the National Register of Historic Places alongside Kent State, the site of the 1969 Woodstock festival, and thousands more historic sites in an effort to clarify to myopic local leadership that parks matter - all parks matter. People's Park's willingness to challenge the status quo, the defense industry, and the racist roots of our nation never mattered more than it does right now.  

The San Francisco School Board, only a year or so ago, voted to "paint down" a commissioned New Deal fresco by Victor Arnautoff in a passionate and embarrassing misunderstanding of the work's effort to address our nation's racist roots. And Tuesday evening, May 24, 2022, the San Francisco Board of Education quietly voted to retire their effort to destroy the artwork by withdrawing their appeal of a successful citizen-led effort to protect it. 

Nothing protects People's Park; not the National Register listing, not the fact that it is listed as an historic resource by the State of California, not the fact that it is a City of Berkeley landmark. Nothing protects it but our sense of respect for our most significant historic sites and the fragile culture they represent to people all over the world. 

If you share any of this shared sense of respect, let your representatives know so that decades of hard and historic work isn't erased within weeks of this extraordinary National Register honor. 

---

Carol Denney is a co-founder of the People's Park Historic District Advocacy Group.

The merchants protest

The conceptual redesign of Hopkins that the council approved on May 10 calls for adding two 4-to-5-foot bike lanes plus a 3-foot buffer between the lanes and parking on the south side of Hopkins between Monterey and McGee—in other words, right in front of Magnani Poultry, Gioia Pizza, Monterey Fish, and other popular shops.

At the May 10 council meeting, Paul Johnson, owner of Monterey Fish, said that all the merchants with whom he had spoken were fine with repaving Hopkins but opposed to bike lanes on the street. Calling the plan “a recipe for disaster” that’s “so dangerous, it’s unbelievable,” he recommended putting the lanes on side streets.

Johnson also warned that the construction process would not be “a three-to-four month” undertaking but rather a project that would likely go “right through the holiday season and into the following year. By the time you people get done with this, we’re all going to be out of business.” 

His objections are even more striking when they’re set alongside the claims in the May 10 staff report that “[t]he proposed design concept was developed through a robust public and stakeholder engagement process” that included “direct conversations held between staff and…business-owners” among others. “This engagement,” staff write, “resulted in a greater understanding of the needs of these stakeholders.” How, then, to explain the staff’s failure to grasp the concerns of Johnson and his fellow merchants? 

Transportation planners did it 

The Hopkins project was entrusted solely to the Department of Transportation and transportation consultants. Transportation planners view people primarily in terms of their mode of travel: you’re either a driver, cyclist, pedestrian, or user of public transit. In like manner, transportation planners view streets primarily as sites of traffic; hence the designation of Hopkins as a “corridor.” 

In fact, Hopkins is much more than a corridor. It’s fronted by a library, a school, a park, shops, and homes. The Monterey-Hopkins intersection is a lively hub of commerce and sociability. The sidewalk on the McGee-to-Monterey block is thronged with people patronizing the stores, eating take-out, or just hanging out. After school, students are thick on the scene. There’s more socializing at Café Espresso on the northwest corner of the intersection. 

The intense shopping and the socializing are evident to anyone who’s visited, not to say frequented, the area. Weirdly, the “Project Goals” include “Transform Hopkins Street between Sacramento and McGee into a community gathering place.” Enhance, yes—but transform? It’s already a place where people gather. 

In a similarly disconcerting reference, the map that accompanied the presentation for the March 22, 2022 ,workshop (now removed from the city’s website), which focused on the segment from McGee to Gilman, labeled the segment of Hopkins from Carlotta to Hopkins Court a “Neighborhood-Serving Retail Zone.” The May 10 staff report refers to “local shops.” 

In fact, the shops in the area serve far more than the neighborhood. They are some of the most distinctive and distinguished retail establishments in the city, attracting customers from beyond the city. 

Astonishingly, Berkeley Horticultural Nursery, on McGee around the corner from Hopkins, is not included in the map’s “Retail Zone,” which only encompasses Hopkins. It’s astonishing, because, to repeat, anyone who’s visited, not to say frequented the area—and the disappeared March 2022 presentation references staff’s “forty discussions with business owners and representatives from Hopkins’ institutions (schools, churches)”—knows that Berkeley Hort’s customers and delivery trucks often occupy McGee and Ada, the street that runs on the south side of the block. A traffic-oriented study ought to have included the whole block and the businesses on it. 

All these businesses draw from a market that extends far beyond the immediate neighborhood, indeed beyond the city’s boundaries. Designating the retail zone as “neighborhood-serving” jibes with the snub of shoppers who access the businesses by car, by making it seem as if most customers walk and bike, which in turn jibe with the Traffic and Placemaking Study’s “Core strategy”: “Reduce vehicle miles traveled in the community by making cycling, walking, public transit, and the sustainable mobility modes the mainstream.” 

This is the “Complete Streets” strategy that, along with traffic calming and other tactics, is the conventional wisdom. Where, however, is evidence that these “sustainable mobility modes” can be mainstream in a city so lacking in public transit ? 

A single AC Transit bus, the 12, goes down Hopkins. It runs only twice an hour. I’m a fan of public transit (see my pre-Covid Clipper Card usage). But no way can the 12’s ridership—barely mentioned in the Hopkins Corridor plan—sustain the shops at the Hopkins-Monterey hub. Ditto for pedestrians. To thrive, these businesses also need customers who travel in cars. 

That’s especially true for older people who need to haul groceries and gardening supplies. To repeat, these shops attract patrons who live far from the immediate neighborhood. Distance plus age plus scanty transit add up to car dependency. Eliminating parking spaces will make it harder for older people to access the businesses. 

Apparently none of this matters to city staff. The map that accompanies the May 10 staff report has no indication that this is a business district and shopping hub; the “Retail Zone” label has vanished. Indeed, the other uses that front the street—residences, schools, churches, the park—are also unmarked. Hopkins is rendered merely as a funnel for traffic. 

In another slap at shops and shoppers, to make room for the protected bike lanes, staff removed the existing bus stop at the northeastern corner of the Hopkins- Monterey intersection. After the street is reconfigured, the closest that westbound bus passengers can get to the shopping hub is the stop at the northwestern corner of Colusa and Hopkins, across the street from the track, park, and pool at MLK, Jr., Middle School but two uphill blocks away from Monterey Market. 

The Transportation staff also ignored the hazards their design creates for people in cars parked on the block between McGee and Monterey/California. Drivers exiting their vehicles will have to step directly into auto traffic moving down a lane narrowed to ten feet. Then they’ll have to walk at least twenty feet (two 4-to-5-foot bike lanes, plus a 3-foot buffer between the lanes and parking, plus the seven feet the plan allocates for a parked car, plus the foot or two beyond the left side of their vehicle) to the curb, dodging cars and bicycles along the way. 

Passengers exiting from the right side of the car will have to walk twelve feet to the curb, dodging bikes. Returning to their cars with groceries, drivers and passengers will have to traverse the same moving obstacle courses. If they have kids with them, the trip will become even more challenging. 

Bike lanes’ murky impact on business 

Johnson’s comments elicited two responses from the council. Hahn asked that the city’s Office of Economic Development be involved in future work on the Hopkins project. District 8 Councilmember Lori Droste dismissed Johnson’s concerns about losing patronage, alluding to “many studies” showing that the installation of bike lanes is good for business. 

Since May 10, I’ve looked at the two reports that Droste specified, a 2020 study from Portland State that studied fourteen “street improvement corridors” in six cities, including San Francisco; and a 2019 study from the city of Toronto that examined the effects of bike lanes on business on Toronto’s Bloor Street. The researchers found that bike lanes had positive or “non-significant” impacts on businesses. 

I’ve also looked at a 2018 report co-authored by Karen Chapple—then still at UC Berkeley, now at the University of Toronto—Raleigh McCoy, and Joseph Poirier (CMP) whose investigation of bike infrastructure impacts on business in San Francisco and Alameda Counties. 

“Overall,” the co-authors concluded, “bike infrastructure does not have a definitively positive or negative effect on business performance. Instead, there are a multitude of other factors outside of planners’ control that determine sales or the likelihood that a business closes.” For example, “[b]usiness characteristics were overall the most reliable predictors of sales,” while “neighborhood characteristics were…poor predictors,” and “primary roads” were “associated with sales declines.” 

How, then, does the Monterey-Hopkins commercial hub, which is located at a chokepoint on a narrow, hilly street and heavily patronized by older customers, compare with the business areas studied in the reports? 

More generally, CMP found that “a clear narrative has not emerged” in the academic research across disciplines “that has examined the impact of bicycle infrastructure on business performance….While advocacy organizations have seized on research that finds a positive effect on businesses, there are limitations to applying this research at the broad scale that advocates would like.” Indeed, the Portland State and Toronto studies were all conducted by or in concert with bicycling advocates. Civinomics, the firm that did the survey of Berkeley residents’ parking preferences, is also pro-bike lanes. 

CMP further advise: 

“Research has also indicated that there could be a negative impact for businesses on corridors with bike infrastructure. Merchant opposition has been clearly documented, but research that looks at merchant attitudes over time tends to show a more neutral or even pro-bike infrastructure stance.” 

In short, proceed with caution—which is precisely what the city didn’t do. Besides failing to connect with many of the merchants, staff never studied the travel modes, the preferences of the area’s shoppers, or the area from which it draws customers. This disregard reflects transportation planners’ myopic vision and two other, linked factors addressed in Parts Three and Four, respectively of this dossier: the staff’s authoritarianism and the bike lobby’s leverage in City Hall. 

First some caveats: I am not a Roman Catholic; I just voted again for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.Calif) as my Representative; I support a woman’s right to an abortion; and I am certainly not a religious scholar. But I do take issue with San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s directive to local priests to deny House Speaker Pelosi Holy Communion because of her support for abortion rights.  

A national survey of Catholic voters in the 2020 election revealed that a broad majority of U.S. Catholics say abortion should be legal, and they oppose efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. Given Archbishop Cordileone’s position vis-à-vis House Speaker Pelosi, that’s a lot of “sinners” who should not receive Holy Communion. Why has the Archbishop singled out Pelosi?  

Note that neither the Old Testament nor the New mentions abortion. However, what the Bible says or does not say about abortion really doesn’t matter. The United States is not a theocracy. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been regularly interpreted to mean that the U.S. Constitution requires the separation of church and state. As Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association declared that when the American people adopted the Establishment Clause they built a “wall of separation" between the church and state. House Speaker Pelosi is a member of the state representing all her constituents. 

Pope Francis, the Archbishop's de facto boss, is at odds with the Archbishop on this issue. The Pope has said he has never denied Communion to anyone, adding that while he doesn’t know if Catholics who support abortion rights ever asked him for Communion, he has “never refused them the Eucharist, since the time I was a priest.” He has also said that “Communion is not a prize for the perfect” but a “a gift” marking the presence of Jesus in his church and community. And has also said that clerics shouldn’t let politics enter into questions about receiving Communion. “Bishops should be pastors, he said, not politicians.”  

Is politics at play here? Perhaps Pope Francis should have a quiet word with Archbishop Cordileone.

The horrific Uvalde massacre, and the Republican non-response, confirms what many of us have thought: the U.S. political process is broken. Not "strained" or "damaged" but rather "rent asunder." America's political process can't be repaired by applying duct tape. It needs reconstructive surgery. 

The Uvalde massacre had tragically familiar components: a mentally-ill, socially-isolated gunman who had been bullied; ready access to weapons of mass destruction; targeting of innocents; and a shameful police response. It was a horrific metaphor for the Republican response to the plight of our nation's less fortunate citizens -- the "99 percent." The Party of Trump responds to tragedy with "hunker down, snowflake; it's going to get worse." And then dances. 

The vast majority of Americans want common-sense gun reform (https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2022/05/26/new-poll-shows-huge-support-for-gun-restrictions-00035349). Republicans block this reform. (Trump's response was: "defund Ukraine; fortify schools.") 

Because our political process is broken, we need to take strong measures. 

1.Put people before profits. The U.S. political system has been corrupted by big money. Unfettered capitalism has taken democracy captive. Republicans refuse to allow new gun-control legislation because they've sold out to the pro-gun lobby. 

In 2022, the United States has two political Parties. Democrats, who mostly support democracy (although there are "big-money" interests in the Party). And Republicans, who are the Party of unfettered capitalism; the Party where "money talks and principle walks." 

It's no secret that Republican politicians can be bought. Consider Ted Cruz or Ron Johnson or (shudder) Mitch McConnell, among others. The GOP leader is Donald Trump who has no principles at all, whose credo is "I'll say whatever you pay me to say, for a big check." The Republican Party is for sale to the highest bidder. 

The only way to resolve this situation is to get money out of politics. The only way to achieve this objective is for the Democrats to not only hold onto the House and Senate but to add seats. Congress has to pass significant campaign-finance reform and this will only happen if Democrats prevail in November. 

2. Expand the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, because of the Trump "presidency," the Federal judiciary is packed with ultra-conservative judges. Therefore, it won't be sufficient to simply pass reform legislation, because it will eventually be blocked in the Supreme Court. (Blocked by the judges that the Republicans bought.) Democrats have to expand the Supreme Court by at least three judges. 

3. Protect voting rights. Restrictive voting rights favor Republicans; common-sense voting rights favor Democrats. The GOP attack on equitable access to the ballot favors the one percent at the expense of the 99 percent. 

Heading into the November election, it is vital to pass laws to protect election workers, same-day registration and early voting. It is also necessary to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which directly addresses the state legislatures’ electoral power grab. 

4. Pass common-sense gun control. The vast majority of Americans want common-sense gun reform (https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2022/05/26/new-poll-shows-huge-support-for-gun-restrictions-00035349). The place to start is with mandatory background checks for gun purchases and the banning of sale of assault weapons. 

5. Pass real economic reform. The first four corrections are essential but not sufficient to repair our broken democracy. The United States needs real economic reform. Democracy doesn't work in societies where there is extreme economic inequality. Sadly, that's what has happened to the United States. 

US inequality is at a historic high. Compared to our European partners (England, France, and Germany) the US has a much greater gap between the rich and the poor. The rich -- think Elon Musk -- have so much more money than most Americans that they are buffered from economic turmoil. During the pandemic, rich Americans got richer and everyone else got poorer. 

Republicans, the Capitalist Party, seek to increase the power of the one percent. If you ask Republicans why they supported Donald Trump, they will typically respond: "I don't like him personally but he did a lot of good things." By "a lot of good things" Republicans mean: Trump helped Mitch McConnell pack the judiciary with conservative judges and Trump signed tax reform that massively favors the interests of the "one percent" and corporations. Trump didn't do very much as "president" but what he did do favored the interests of the rich. This needs to be reversed. Democrats should sponsor concrete actions to secure a more equitable society. 

Summary: To repair our broken political process, we need to do two things. First, get out the vote in November. It's imperative that Democrats retain control of Congress. 

Second, we must improve our messaging. Democrats should say, "We put people over profits. We represent the 99 percent not the richest one percent." Democrats should say clearly: "Republicans have sold out to the rich. Republicans have sold out to big oil. Republicans have sold out to the NRA. Republicans have sold out to white male supremacists." "Democrats are the Party of the people. Republicans are the Party of the dollar." 

This moment requires direct action. "Thoughts are prayers" are woefully insufficient. 

---