Nov 2020 Berkeley

Here are my recommendations on Berkeley’s measures and elected officials:

Berkeley Measures

FF: Yes to Parcel Tax for Emergency Services

GG - Yes for Trip Tax on Transportation Network Companies (Uber+Lyft)

HH - Yes for Utility Users tax for Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

II - Yes for a new Police Accountability Board

JJ - Yes for Higher Mayor + Council salaries

KK - Yes to Update Outdated Parts of the City Charter

LL - Yes to Extend Voter-Approved Spending Limits

MM - No Endorsement on Complicated Measure on Rent Control and ADUs

Berkeley Elected Officials

School Board: Laura Babitt and Ana Vasudeo

Mayor: Jesse Arreguin

City Council, District 2: Terry Taplin #1 (plus #2 Carter, #3 Sharenko)

City Council, District 3: Deborah Matthews #1, Ben Bartlett #2

City Council, District 5: No endorsement

City Council, District 6: No endorsement

Rent Stabilization Board: Marasovic, Johnson, Kelley, Simon-Weisberg, and either Ahmadi or Panahi

For details, read on ...

Berkeley Measures

FF: Yes to Parcel Tax for Emergency Services

Measure FF would provide new funding for Berkeley’s firefighting, 911, hazard mitigation, and wildfire prevention/preparedness, paid for by an increased parcel tax (~$100/yr for a 1000-sf home). It needs a ⅔ vote and would be permanent. Support from all but one of Berkeley’s Council (what’s wrong with my D2 Councilmember Cheryl Davila?), firefighters, and lotsa other groups. Opposition from the Taxpayer’s Association. See Voter’s Edge. 

GG - Yes for Trip Tax on Transportation Network Companies (Uber+Lyft)

Hooray! This measure would start to discourage and address the harmful impacts of “Transportation Network Companies” (TNCs, such as Uber + Lyft). TNCs have increased traffic, pollution, and safety risks on our streets. The state has done a poor job of regulating them and has made it difficult for cities and the region to do so. This tax is one thing Berkeley *can* do. Measure GG would initiate a new fee of $0.50 per trip (only $0.25 for shared/pooled rides). 

This is a general tax, so it only requires a 50% vote (good) and puts revenues into the General Fund (so-so). Local transportation advocates (especially Walk Bike Berkeley) are asking city officials to commit revenues ($900k/yr) to relevant transportation purposes -- we’ll see if they do. Endorsements include Walk Bike Berkeley, Bike East Bay, TransForm, Sierra Club, lots of electeds. Opposition by Taxpayers Association. See Voter's Edge for impartial analysis and ballot arguments. 

HH - Yes for Utility Users tax for Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Measure HH would raise $2.4 million/year that city officials plan to use for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, by increasing the tax on electricity and gas from 7.5% to 10%. Like GG, HH is a general tax, so it only requires 50% vote and funds go to the General Fund. But measure HH also establishes a separate “Climate Equity Fund” and designates a city commission to provide non-binding recommendations to the City Council on how to spend the funds. 

Endorsements include League of Women Voters, Sierra Club, Walk Bike Berkeley, TransForm, 6 councilmembers, and more. Opposition includes the Taxpayers Association and the same three voters opposing other funding measures. See Voter's Edge for impartial analysis and ballot arguments. 

II - Yes for a new Police Accountability Board

Berkeley was one of the first cities to initiate a Police Review Commission (1973). This would replace it with a more powerful Police Accountability Board, with more authority over investigating police misconduct, review + recommendations on the Police Department budget, and more. It’s widely supported and no one submitted an argument against it. See Voter’s Edge for impartial analysis and ballot argument. 

JJ - Yes for Higher Mayor + Council salaries

I want competent and committed people making decisions for our city, and I want them to be able to treat it as the full-time job it should be. Public financing was a good start. Now candidates have a shot even if they don’t have access to lots of wealth. But if they do get elected, current salaries only allow them to be “low-income” (Mayor) or “very low-income” (Councilmembers), at 56% and 36% of the median income (for a family of 3). Low salaries might not be an obstacle for people with inherited or family wealth, or a partner’s income to support them. But others have to rely on a second job or simply live extremely frugally in order to be able to live in the area they represent. That’s a bad barrier to having the best candidates. 

Measure JJ would set the Mayor’s salary at the median income of a 3-person household in Alameda County and set councilmembers’ salaries at 63% of the Mayor’s salary, or $107,000 and $68,000 based on current information. Salaries would be indexed to inflation, and the city’s Personnel Board could reduce salaries if other city employees take pay cuts (not allowed by current law). That would be a substantial and fair increase from the current rates set back in 1998. 

Supportive ballot arguments are signed by leaders from Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, the guy who authored the city’s public financing law, the city’s main labor union, and a former councilmember. Opposition from a few individuals. See Voter’s Edge.

KK - Yes to Update Outdated Parts of the City Charter

Measure KK would amend the city Charter to make a bunch of changes to update outdated parts of the city charter: eliminate residency requirements for firefighters, make the Redistricting Commission provisions match state law, remove gender-specific language, and update terms & duties of the City Attorney’s office. No opposition argument. Voter’s Edge. 

LL - Yes to Extend Voter-Approved Spending Limits

Every four years we have to vote to allow the city to spend money that taxpayers have authorized raising. To see why, see what I wrote in 2008. Details at Voter’s Edge. 

MM - No Endorsement on Complicated Measure on Rent Control and ADUs

This is a complicated and confusing measure that raises policy questions that deserve more consideration than they’ll get as the last of 22 measures on our ballots. 

First, this prohibits evictions when a state or local emergency has been declared and emergency legislation allows tenants to withhold rent. That’s already city law. Proponents say it’s necessary to protect tenants after the emergency expires, but it looks to me as if MM’s protections would *also* expire when the emergency does. 

Second, it allows the Rent Board to collect information from owners of single-family homes and other types of properties that *aren’t* subject to rent control but *are* subject to the city’s just cause ordinance. It also allows the city to set an unspecified registration fee. The info collection seems good. But I’m not sure I trust the Rent Board to set and use fees well -- there’s still that 2012 Grand Jury Report saying the Rent Board has set and raised fees without justification, and the League of Women Voters also expressing concerns. 

Third, it changes the rules about which types of properties can have Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs, the jargon term for a granny flat) and be exempt from rent control. If MM passes, an owner-occupied single-family home with a granny flat would be exempt from rent control, but the same home with two granny flats would not (bad). That doesn’t make sense. MM would also apply rent control to some other ADUs, such as ones built on the property of apartment buildings (good). 

The “No” arguments are signed by one of my favorite councilmembers (D1’s Rashi Kesarwani), plus Loni Hancock + Tom Bates, all of whom I think of as very reasonable people. The “Yes” arguments are signed by the Mayor, a couple councilmembers, and several Rent Board Commissioners, and I see endorsements from groups I respect (such as East Bay Housing Organizations). See Voter’s Edge. 

All in all, it seems like this does some good things, some maybe unnecessary things, and some bad things -- I can’t tell what the net effects would be. I’d rather this go through a legislative process. I’m undecided. I’d rather the City Council come up with a more consensus plan. But I know that won’t happen before Nov 3. Advice welcome!

Berkeley Elected Officials

Berkeley School Board: Laura Babitt and Ana Vasudeo

Laura Babitt and Ana Vasudeo are the two strongest candidates in this crowded race. Here’s the order I’d vote if the School Board had ranked-choice voting.

#1: Laura Babitt. She has a long and impressive resume of involvement in Berkeley schools: BSEP, Superintendent’s Budget Advisory Committee, Parent Advisory Committee, Parents of Children of African Descent (she ran it for several years), and a decade on elementary + middle school Site Councils. She identifies and has worked on issues I’m concerned about -- closing the achievement gap, equity in discipline, better responses to sexual & racial harassment -- and she understands that the next several years will have tough budgets. Professionally, she’s a finance and accounting consultant. Endorsements include all but one of the existing school board members, 7 councilmembers, the Berkeley Federation of Teachers (BFT), and many more. See Berkeleyside profile.

#2: Ana Vasudeo. She also had a long involvement in schools: she’s VP of Equity & Inclusion on the PTA, served on an elementary Site Council + PTA, and has worked on diversity programming in schools. Plus she’s involved in schools professionally. She helps run the Safe Routes to Schools program in San Francisco, making it easier and safer for kids to walk, bike, and take transit to get to school. Her top issues are closing the achievement gap, data-driven decisions, living wage for educators, and safe/sustainable transportation for students. Endorsements include all existing school board members, 8 councilmembers, BFT, and many more. See Berkeleyside profile.

And I know we only get to vote for two, but if we *could* vote for three, I'd also vote for ...

#3: Mike Chang is a civil rights lawyer with the US Dept of Education, where he works on “three common challenges in our education system: race disparities in suspensions and expulsions, accessibility issues for students with disabilities, and sexual and race based harassment.” He also teaches at UC Berkeley and is on the Police Review Commission. He’s smart and committed. I imagine he'd have a lot of good ideas on what the schools *should* do. But I see little indication of his experience in helping to run the Berkeley schools: just "10 years of volunteerism and work as V.P. of a PTA executive committee." No BSEP or Site Council. Endorsements include the 2 departing school board members, 2 members of the city council (plus an enthusiastic friend of mine). As a federal employee he can’t accept partisan endorsements, so don’t count the lack of politicians’ endorsements against him. Babitt & Vasudeo simply have more prior experience in trying to *govern* schools. See Berkeleyside profile.

Esfandiar Imani has some some BUSD governance experience: BSEP and the BUSD Planning & Oversight Committee, plus a great example of ‘good trouble’: after he saw a ‘dismal and deeply offensive portrayal of the people of Middle Eastern heritage’ in his daughter’s middle school class, he worked with the right stakeholders to change history/social science standards. He sounds like a good guy; he’s done  lots of nice volunteer work and helps his wife run an organization that “provides free tutoring to mostly underprivileged students.” Professionally, he’s now a freelance risk management consultant after a long career at PG&E. But … his website lists zero endorsements. If no one else has seen fit to endorse him, I doubt he deserves my endorsement. See Berkeleyside profile.

Jose Luis Bedolla says he’s a frustrated parent and that COVID exposed existing failures in our system: inequity, disparate experiences, and our tacit acceptance of those failures. True, and I doubt any candidates listed above would disagree. The question is what to do about it and how. Bedolla has participated in BSEP (not sure how long), but that seems to be it for his past experience in Berkeley schools -- I’ll trust people who have more experience. See Berkeleyside profile. 

Don’t bother with perennial candidate Norma Harrison. 

Mayor: Jesse Arreguin

The last three times Jesse Arreguin ran for office in Berkeley, I endorsed his opponent and Jesse won. Now I’m endorsing him because I’ve been impressed by him over the past few years. Most importantly (to me), he has changed his approach to the housing crisis. He used to support idealistic roadblocks to good development (the perfect is the enemy of the good). Now he has helped Berkeley pass local funding measures for affordable housing and he's helping Berkeley figure out how to responsibly redevelop parking lots at North Berkeley and Ashby stations into homes people can afford. Friends who have worked more closely with him say that he has learned a lot (and been effective) by chairing the Association of Bay Area Governments. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he deserves a second term as Mayor, and he’ll get one. Endorsements include the entire range of Berkeley politics (BDC, BCA, BPA). 

Jesse has done well enough that he's cleared the field of serious competition. Wayne Hsiung is the head of the (radical) animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere. Think PETA, but more geographically focused. In a 2015 article he suggested “Imagine, for example, if every animal rights activist in the world suddenly moved to Berkeley.” He then moved to Berkeley in 2016 and has been a frequent presence at council meetings, often with dozens to hundreds of green-vested animal rights advocates in tow. While his mayoral website talks about a lot of other issues, it’s hard not to have the impression that he’s truly a one-issue candidate. 

Aidan Hill came in a distant third in the 2018 District 7 council race. They look like an interesting young person, but totally unprepared to be mayor. Naomi Pete is a perennial candidate who has no apparent online presence. 

City Council, District 2: Terry Taplin #1 (plus #2 Carter, #3 Sharenko)

I want Terry Taplin as my representative (I live in D2). He’s got experience on several city commissions (Transportation, Children/Youth/Recreation, Civic Arts) and he worked as a legislative intern at the city council. I like his views on the issues. I first met him (several times) in the conversations about potential development at the North Berkeley & Ashby BART stations, where he’s played a constructive role. 

He’s a Black gay man raised in West Berkeley by a single mother; he’s a poet and a community organizer. He’s a caregiver for his mom, a retired in-home elder care provider, and his husband and sister are health care providers. Endorsements include 7 (of 8) City Councilmembers, several Democratic groups, and a bunch of housing, environmental, and labor groups. Please vote for Terry Taplin as your #1 choice and contribute to his campaign (max $50). Also see his Berkeleyside profile. 

I’ll give my #2 vote to Timothy Carter. He has less experience within city government than Terry or Alex -- Timothy’s public service has been on BUSD’s Personnel Commission. But I agree with him on the issues. His top issue is “housing, housing, housing,” and he has thoughtful positions on police reform, climate change, safe streets, and homelessness. Professionally, he’s an insurance agent who’s had an office on San Pablo Avenue for over 20 years, and he’s raised 3 kids through Berkeley schools. He’s a successful Black businessman who’s giving back to his community. Also see his Berkeleyside profile. I know he's a newcomer, but I like him on the issues and I like his story. 

I’ll give my #3 vote to Alex Sharenko. He also has experience on several city commissions (Zero Waste, Housing, Labor), and he volunteers with Berkeley Youth Alternatives and Friends of Strawberry Creek Park. He works as a solar energy scientist. As with Terry, I’ve met him through conversations about potential development at the North Berkeley & Ashby BART stations, where he has been constructive role. I also agree with him on lots of issues. He’s endorsed by 3 of the councilmembers (all of whom also endorsed Terry). As the race has unfolded, I've gotten a little less enthusiastic about how Alex has pursued his campaign, so I've switched him to my #3 vote.

I recommend that you do not vote for incumbent Cheryl Davila. In her first three years on council, she frequently alienated her colleagues by showing up late for or being unprepared for council meetings, and sometimes simply not understanding what was going on. I witnessed that first hand in council meetings I attended. I also got no useful response when I attempted to contact her as a constituent (about North Berkeley BART development). This year she seems to have found her voice as a Black woman calling for police reform. That’s great, but even there she doesn’t appear to have been effective. I have the impression that she takes strong stands but isn’t effective at moving them forward. She clearly burned bridges on the council:  7 of her 8 colleagues endorsed other candidates, and only 2 endorse her. Here’s her Berkeleyside profile. 

Update as of 10/28/2020: When I actually voted, I decided to vote Taplin-Carter-Sharenko, so I've updated my endorsement accordingly. Feel free to contact me for details. 

City Council, District 3: Deborah Matthews #1, Ben Bartlett #2

I met Deborah Matthews through the conversations about redeveloping the Ashby and North Berkeley BART stations. I saw in action her commitment to creating housing for everyone. I also saw how her longtime experience in Berkeley decision-making helped get things done (she has experience on city commissions/Boards on Planning, Zoning, and Housing, plus the county Arts Commission. She’s actively helped several arts and culture and small businesses get going in South Berkeley. Her priorities are housing, reinvestment in South Berkeley, and police reform. And she’s the first Black woman elected to head the (moderate) Berkeley Democratic Club. Professionally, she’s been a real estate broker in South Berkeley for nearly 30 years. Endorsements include South Berkeley Now!, Berkeley Democratic Club, Berkeley Neighbors for Housing & Climate Action. Here’s her Berkeleyside profile.

She’s challenging incumbent Ben Bartlett, who I endorsed for this seat in 2016. His website and Berkeleyside profile are impressive. His stated priorities are similar to Deborah’s: address income inequality, lack of low-income housing, and police reform. Professionally, he’s a lawyer in a “boutique law firm” focused on blockchain, AI, and “decentralized finance” (think Bitcoin) -- I can’t say that’s an attraction. Endorsements show broad support: the entire City Council endorsed him, as did a bevy of other groups -- Sierra Club, Friends of Adeline, several Democratic clubs, Berkeley Firefighters and other labor unions. So he’ll likely win. And yet … several people I know in South Berkeley say they’ve been consistently disappointed that he hasn’t acted more strongly to support affordable housing. 

Third candidate Orlando Martinez looks like an earnest fellow, but his plans and commitments are vague and he has no city experience. Professionally, he’s a sales engineer for an international firm that uses 3-D printer to make buildings (!!). Here’s his Berkeleyside profile. 

City Council, District 5: No endorsement

Incumbent Sophie Hahn will win this race easily. I don’t support her: I met her in person in 2014 when she (along with Arreguin) tried to convince me and TransForm to support Measure R. I thought she was wrong on the policy -- it attempted to undo a downtown plan, adopted after a long and inclusive community process, and replace it with impossible demands before allowing new homes downtown. Worse, her arguments admitted no nuance. She said R was all good and the downtown plan was all bad. 74% of Berkeley voters (including me) disagreed. 

Since then, Arreguin has evolved, but Hahn hasn’t (that I can see). I’ve recently seen her try to put roadblocks in the way of replacing the acres of asphalt that are the North Berkeley BART parking lot with (some) homes. She expresses far more concern about making sure there are places to park cars than about places for people to live. I’m not a fan. 

I met challenger Todd Andrew when he helped deliver signs for North Berkeley Now! He says good things in his Berkeleyside profile, but his website requires a registration to see anything (as of Oct 11th). I’d rather have him on the council, but it doesn’t look like he’s been able to mount a viable candidacy. Paul Darwin Picklesimer is an animal rights activist who didn’t even reply to Berkeleyside’s request for a profile. 

City Council, District 6: No endorsement

I know less about incumbent Susan Wengraf, so I’ll quote my friend Nathan Landau, who’s endorsing challenger Richard Illgen: 

I’ve known Rich for many years, he has a deep and abiding interest in affordable housing and homelessness. He’s served on Berkeley Commissions. Illgen’s endorsers include the Central Labor Council, the League of Conservation Voters, and Councilmembers Harrison and Bartlett. But Illgen’s got a tough race in this affluent district against incumbent Susan Wengraf, running for her fifth Council term. Before that she was the previous Councilmember’s aide. Wengraf’s generally considered one of the more conservative Councilpeople, but she has supported some housing and transit projects that are not in her district. Wengraf is backed by Nancy Skinner, the Mayor, and five Councilmembers, even some who would seem to align with Illgen.

See Berkeleyside profiles for Illgen and Wengraf. 

Rent Stabilization Board: Marasovic, Johnson, Kelley, Simon-Weisberg, and either Ahmadi or Panahi

I appreciate that Berkeley has strong rent control laws that provide important protections to tenants, managed by the Rent Stabilization Board (RSB). During my 25+ years in Berkeley, I started by voting wholly for the pro-tenant slate, developed every two years in a tenants’ convention. But a 2012 Grand Jury report voiced concerns about improprieties, a not-very professional administration, and a hire-your-buddies mentality. The RSB vehemently rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. But our local League of Women Voters chapter echoed the concerns and encouraged the RSB to make some reforms (with a letter that I’m afraid is no longer online). I don’t know if they have, and I don’t know how fair the Grand Jury’s report was. 

So I’ve been looking for candidates who think about small landlords as well as tenants, for people who will take the governance role seriously -- sometimes I think the people on the tenants’ slate fit that description, sometimes not. The current RSB includes only people from tenants’ slates. 

This year there are 12 candidates: 5 on the “Right to Housing” (tenants) slate, 5 on the “Homeowners for the Rent Board” slate, and 2 unaffiliated. You can vote for up to 5. Here’s how I plan to vote: 

1. Carole Marasovic (unaffiliated), who’s been Chair of Berkeley’s Homeless Commission, supports rent control, and speaks to the importance of hearing concerns of small landlords and homeowners. 
2. Xavier Johnson (tenants), a lawyer with Centro Legal de la Raza, who talks sensibly about the three P’s (protection, preservation, and production) and the need for a regional housing funding measure. 
3. Andy Kelley (tenants), who Co-Chaired Berkeley’s Measure O+P campaigns to raise more funds for affordable housing, has done lots in the city, and is endorsed by the entire City Council + School Board. 
4. Leah Simon-Weisberg (tenants), RSB incumbent first elected in 2016, professionally a tenants’ rights attorney, and who speaks in her Berkeleyside profile about the need to consider the plight of small landlords hurting from COVID impacts. 
5. For my 5th vote, I’m vacillating between two from the homeowner’s slate: Bahman Ahmadi (former engineer, sounds rational) or Soulmaz Panahi (real estate agent, talks about the need to differentiate between large corporate landlords and homeowners who only rent a few homes). 

I’m meh on unaffiliated Bianca Zahrai (manages benefits for veterans and employees, sounds good, but … she has no website and didn’t show up to the LWV debate) and Dominique Walker (cool that she was part of Moms4Housing, but I don’t think the problem is that there are lots of vacant houses). 

I’m hard no on three from the homeowners slate: McDunn sounds extremely combative  and vehemently opposed to rent control. Moldenhawer and Neufeld are a little smoother, but also sound like they just don’t think rent control should exist. Also NO on Mendonca (tenants), whose profile was mostly generalities and didn’t inspire confidence that she’d govern. 

If you want to do your own homework, here are some resources:

• Berkeleyside profiles for all 12 candidates
• LWV candidates’ forum (2-hour video!)
• RSB Website

TWO REQUESTS

• If you do good homework and come to a different conclusion than me, particularly if you have a compelling argument about how somebody would help the board govern, please let me know! 
• If you’re an RSB enthusiast and can explain what it’s done to respond to the Grand Jury’s concerns, please let me know! I’d like to be enthusiastic about it too.