When I was a tenant, I appreciated that the Rent Board seemed to successfully implement what's left of Berkeley's rent control (I know, more than most other places, but I still wish it were stronger). I didn't get much help the couple times I tried to get services, but I figured that's 'cuz they were too busy with more pressing cases. As I've watched Berkeley politics, I've been saddened that all the politicking for the Rent Board seems to occur off camera: a tenants' convention comes together every couple of years to nominate what is this year called the Progressive Affordable Housing Slate. That seems more suited to machine politics than to a place with a strong participatory climate, such as Berkeley. So I've always read the other candidates' statements and occasionally voted for one of the non-slate candidates. But I think the slate always wins. This year the slate is Dodsworth, Shelton, Soto-Vigil, and Tregub.
Now there's a damning Grand Jury report about the Rent Board, charging improprieties, a not-very professional administration, and a hire-your-buddies mentality. Given the way the Rent Board has been elected for several years, that doesn't sound very surprising. Of course the Rent Board largely objects to the Grand Jury report. I know Grand Juries are not always the greatest, and I have no idea where the truth lies in that kerfuffle.
The difference is that this year there is an opposing slate, Berkeley Tenants United for Fairness (Drake, Hunt, James, and Shenoy). I read their ballot statements, and they all sound like reasonable people with reasonable ideas. They say they just want a more professionalized administration of the Rent Board. But all their campaign money is from landlords and property owners, and it looks like they may have acted improperly themselves with some of that landlord money. If they win, they'll be beholden to those interests. And I don't want that.
Read up:
- Berkeleyside article on the opposing slates
- Daily Cal article on opposing slates
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment