Berkeley Measures

If you vote in Berkeley, you know we get to vote on a lot. If you want an impartial breakdown of what is in each measure, check out the very useful "Pros & Cons" guide from the local League of Women Voters.

Yes on M: Berkeley Streets & Watershed Bond

This is an easy one. Berkeley streets are in bad shape. That hurts all of us -- whether we drive, take the bus, ride bikes, or just stumble on potholes and broken sidewalks. Measure M would authorize bonds, to be repaid by a modest increase in property taxes, and use the proceeds to construct street improvements and related flood control measures. There's also some language in there about 'green infrastructure.' Opponents seem to be very confused: they agree that street repair is important, say that Measure M would put too little money towards it and that they want an unspecified alternate approach, but then they also say there's too many tax increases on this ballot. I'm with the League of Women Voters, Senator Loni Hancock, Auditor Hogan, EBMUD Director Andy Katz, and Mayor Bates. Let's fix our streets: vote Yes on M. 

Yes on N & O: Berkeley Pools Bond & Parcel Tax

Talk about synchronized swimming -- here's a matched pair of measures to improve Berkeley pools. Measure N would authorize issuance of a bond to pay for construction of a new warm pool (to replace the one that had to be demolished with the renovation at Berkeley High), much beloved and needed by elderly and disabled swimmers, plus improvements to the King and Willard Pools. Measure O would authorize a parcel tax to pay for ongoing pool operations; O would only go into effect if N also passes. Measure N would cost about $10 per $100,000 of assessed value of a home; Measure O is assessed on a per square foot basis, about $10/year on a 1200 sq ft house. I'm voting yes on both --

Yes on P: Raise Gann Limit

It is really dumb that we have to vote on this every four years. If you want details, see what I wrote in 2008. This year no one signed a ballot argument against Measure P.

Yes on Q: Modernize language for Utility Users Tax

Another thing I wish we didn't have to vote on, but deserves a Yes vote anyway. This is a measure to update the language of the implementation of the Utility Users Tax to comply with changes in federal law and changing technologies. No one signed a ballot argument against it.

Yes on R: Rational Redistricting

When the city adopted district elections for the council (1986), the measure specified the exact boundaries of the districts and said that future redistricting was required to keep the districts as close as possible to the original boundaries. This means, for example, that students are mostly split between three different districts. And the districts are getting increasingly out of whack with changes in demographics. This isn't how other cities do it. Sometimes when Berkeley does things differently, it is a bad idea. Measure R would put in the place the same approach as in other cities. Join the local League of Women Voters, Berkeley Common Cause, and a bunch of rational elected officials: vote Yes on R.

No on S: Wrong solution to a real nuisance

Measure S would outlaw sitting on sidewalks in Berkeley's commercial areas. That is the wrong solution to a real nuisance. I looked carefully through the measure and the FAQs on the "No on S" and "Yes on S" websites. Proponents argue that this will help local businesses; but I don't see any real evidence of this claim. A ban on all sitting seems highly likely to have very uneven, probably discriminatory, enforcement. Much of the objectionable behavior people don't like is already against the law (off-leash dogs, blocking the sidewalk). Yes, people need more services, and yes, living on the street is unhealthy. But there are long waiting lists for those services and for the affordable housing that provides longer-term solutions. Measure S is all stick and no carrot. Evidence from other cities is mixed: some cities had good experiences, some bad. I particularly note that the "No on S" FAQ is stocked with lots of citations, while the "Yes on S" FAQ is just rhetoric. I'm voting No on S.

Yes on T: Approve city's Rezoning for West Berkeley

This is a toughie. I haven't decided my position. Writeup coming after I do more research and think some more. I welcome advice. I will revise this post when I get a more solid position. 
[Update 10/29/2012] Okay, I did a bunch of reading and thinking on this one and decided to vote Yes, but this is not a slam dunk.

First, what are we voting on? We are voting on whether to approve -- or not -- the changes to the West Berkeley Plan that emerged from a city planning process over the past several years. The city went through an orderly planning process, took input from all quarters, and came up with the revisions that are on the ballot. Opponents of course claim that the wrong people were involved, that there was inadequate notice given to neighbors. Was it a perfect process? I'm sure not. And I wasn't involved, so I don't speak from personal experience in this plan. But my experience of other Berkeley planning & political processes is that there's LOTS of involvement, and that people who don't like the outcome always complain about the process, even when it was good (example: Downtown Berkeley Plan). The council put the plan on the ballot because they knew if they didn't, the opponents would collect signatures to call for a referendum. So I'm positively inclined towards the plan on the process, before looking at the merits of it.

The second question, is the plan a good one for West Berkeley? There are lots of details about height and which size units and all that. Basically, it looks to me as it this revised plan would allow a small increase in the flexibility of development over the next 10 years. This will contribute a little bit to the changes underfoot in West Berkeley -- a slow reuse of underused industrial sites to provide some more homes and a few more places to work and shop. I don't think this is a BIG change in West Berkeley -- it seems like a very modest one. I also think this revised plan is more of a recognition of change that is already underfoot and allowing it to move forward. Opponents are raising fears that artists and light industry will be kicked out of West Berkeley. But these are many of the same people who worried that the West Berkeley Bowl would cause traffic disaster and rapid displacement in West Berkeley. I haven't seen that happen. And in any case, I don't think Measure T will drive  the deindustrialization -- there are much bigger forces at play in our world causing that.

Oh, and as for environmental concerns. This will not put any new development right next to Aquatic Park. If it creates more residents in West Berkeley, that may result in some more people walking around park, but that seems like that a good thing.

In the end, I think this is a modest change that will bring West Berkeley's zoning up to date with the trends occurring for neighborhoods like it around the Bay Area. I don't think it will spell disaster, and I am tired of having so many things on our ballot because we have over-active neighborhood activists who distrust almost everything our city government does. I'm voting Yes on T.

Oh, and if you want to read up for yourself:

• Berkeleyside article when the plan went to the ballot
• VERY LONG East Bay Express article about lots of the Berkeley races, with a special focus on Measure T and development.
• And of course, the League of Women Voter's basic info and info from 'Voter's Edge', a Berkeleyside non-partisan info site with election info.

No No No on U: the Berkeley political gridlock ordinance

Measure U starts from the false premise that Berkeley does not have enough opportunity for public input and oversight of city government. It would institute a bunch of requirements to create more input and oversight: a new city commission that would have the authority to sue the city, at taxpayer expense; several changes to how the city council and all the other boards and commissions operate. Measure U would gum up Berkeley's decision-making processes even more than they already are.

I like sunshine. But we already have 36 city boards and commissions. We have very active community members engaged in city government. Have you been to a council meeting? They're busy, noisy, and slightly chaotic. That's fine -- democracy is messy. But it shouldn't be gridlocked. Join the local League of Women Voters, Auditor Hogan, State Senator Loni Hancock, and numerous others: No on U.

No on V: More gridlock, financial reporting style

This one starts from what sounds like a good premise: decision-making should be based on good factual reporting. But then it takes it in a direction that is guaranteed to gum up the city's actions. Measure V would mandate that the city expand on a report the city already creates -- about future fiscal responsibilities for pensions, etc. -- and project the report 20 years into the future (vs. the current 5 years). The city would also have to 'certify' the report, a process which would invite endless legal challenges. If the 'certification' were delayed, the city could not do its normal debt restructuring between tax collection periods. Think And V wouldn't allow the city to respond to an earthquake or other emergencies. It seems like it is designed to cause city government shutdown.

There may be a problem with city employee compensation or retirement benefits, I don't know (sorry, city employee friends). But even if there is, this isn't a good way to get at it. Join the local League of Women Voters, Senator Loni Hancock, and numerous councilmembers: No on V.