Oakland is one of the few California cities where Councilmembers can run for reelection indefinitely. Of the ten largest cities in California, only Oakland and Sacramento are without term limits for the City Council. In the other eight cities, incumbency is not an issue. But in Oakland, the advantages of incumbency are overwhelming: the last time a full-term Councilmember was defeated for reelection was in 1996, and half of our City Council has been elected to serve sixteen years or more. Oakland’s notable lack of term limits and the built-in advantages of incumbency aren’t the only factors producing stagnant leadership. Strict campaign-finance regulations also favor incumbents because incumbents have more access to loopholes than challengers, while challengers have passionate supporters who are more likely to give the maximum contribution.

The most significant loophole enjoyed by incumbents under Oakland’s campaign-finance rules is the ability to roll over debt from one campaign to the next without triggering self-financing penalties, which is very unfair. Incumbents also tend to do better securing matching funds than their challengers, and it is a rare day when a City Council challenger has access to ballot measure committees or other funds that are allowed to sidestep City regulation. But there is another key reason why incumbents benefit more from campaign donation limits than challengers: passion.

It takes a lot of passion to challenge a sitting City Councilmember. As much as people are dissatisfied with the City Council and City leadership in general, it is an uphill climb to unseat an incumbent. Councilmembers can punish their political enemies with unfavorable legislation, and though Councilmembers are not supposed to decide the character of individual development projects, the recipients of public contracts, where parking meters are located, or which parks get renovated, the fact is that they usually do decide these matters. Any community member with interests before the City is taking a huge risk when challenging an incumbent, and recent history bears this out. Nancy Nadel’s tight reelection campaign in 2008 featured a mailer attacking her opponents as real-estate speculators, yet property developers gave her more money than they gave her challengers, because most of them couldn’t risk her wrath. Those who are willing to jeopardize their interests to help Oakland achieve better leadership must be very passionate, and are therefore more likely to contribute the maximum amount of resources allowed.

The report prepared by Ethics Commission staff is flawed (PDF) but contains the information necessary to prove this point. Dan Purnell, Executive Director of the Ethics Commission, was quietly criticized on Monday for making errors of omission on an ethics matter that appear to favor Councilmember Jean Quan. For the Commission’s discussion of campaign-finance changes (which are opposed by Ms. Quan), Mr. Purnell, in his reports of past campaign donations and spending, wrongly includes City-provided matching funds in donation totals without noting so, making it appear that maximum-contribution donations are a much lower percentage of overall contributions than in reality. However, one can still see that Sean Sullivan received a higher percentage of his overall contributions in maximum increments than did Ms. Nadel. With incumbents enjoying a stranglehold over their seats, it makes sense to give challengers more of an opportunity to make their voices heard, and since raising donation limits benefits challengers more than incumbents, this aids the democratic process.

But that’s only one side of the equation. Low donation limits disproportionately benefit incumbents because their supporters tend to be less passionate, and because they have loopholes they can exploit that challengers cannot. But Oakland also has spending limits, and there are good reasons to think that IRV will increase campaign budgets. If those budgets are unduly constrained, rather than limiting the money in politics, money will just go around the candidates, weakening democracy and leaving candidates more beholden to special interests.

City Attorney John Russo makes a good case that Instant Runoff Voting should trigger an increase to campaign limits. Consolidating two elections into one necessarily lengthens the election season, increasing campaign expenses. More importantly, holding elections in November instead of June means that there are many more voters to capture (higher turnout is of course the main selling point of IRV). Ms. Quan said publicly that “you don’t need twice as many mailers” in a November election, but you have to send mailers to twice as many people. Failing to increase expenditure limits when campaign costs go up doesn’t take money out of politics, it takes control away from candidates.

Because, of course, money won’t leave politics. California cities are constrained in their ability to impose taxes, so there is less money in local campaigns because there is less at stake, compared to other states where many millions of dollars are spent on middling mayoral elections. But since there are still dollars at stake in election results, from businesses seeking permits to nonprofits seeking public funding, interests will spend money on campaigns regardless of what the Public Ethics Commission declares. If candidates cannot collect and spend these dollars, they will go to unregulated independent efforts. Thus spending limits don’t decrease money in politics, and can reduce candidates’ control over campaigns, encouraging negative campaigning.

Whatever high-minded goals avowed by campaign reform advocates are undermined by unseemly politicking over these decisions, with mayoral candidate Jean Quan exhorting her supporters to oppose raising campaign limits with the explicit goal of helping her campaign vis-a-vis Don Perata. But Mr. Perata controls an unregulated campaign account, and if there is money on his side, it will find a way into the election through independent expenditures. Mayoral campaign aside, Oakland desperately needs to level the playing field for challengers to our unusually entrenched City Council. Because of loopholes more available to incumbents, because of the real need for more spending due to higher turnout, and because of the passion of challengers’ supporters, loosening campaign-finance limits will aid grassroots democracy more than strict limits.

The US Supreme Court ruling that corporate bodies are entitled to free speech rights jeopardizes state and local regulations since the First Amendment applies to states. In Oakland, a judge ruled in 2006 that Political Action Committees could directly advocate for and against candidates, a ruling that was exploited by supporters of both Aimee Allison and Pat Kernighan during that year’s Council runoff. Between the likelihood of high independent expenditures and the consolidated elections in November, the Council may consider lifting donation and expenditure limits for local elections. There’s also talk of eliminating matching funds, for several reasons including the expense, that they’re not available for at-large elections, and a feeling that these funds mostly help incumbents who are more adept at exploiting campaign rules they wrote themselves. Lifting donation and expenditure limits would certainly be a boon for challengers, who compared to incumbents tend to have fewer but more passionate supporters, and who need to spend more to overcome an incumbent’s name recognition. One City Council seat up for election this November will have no incumbent, and so may be a test of a new campaign atmosphere in Oakland.

Having established herself as a serious mayoral contender, Councilmember Jean Quan cannot run for reelection, creating this rare open seat. The Montclair-Laurel District 4 seat has the highest voter turnout in the city, making it likely the most expensive of the three Council elections this November. Now that candidates are talking to potential supporters, many wonder who Ms. Quan will choose as her successor. According to several sources, Ms. Quan has introduced her husband, Alameda County Medical Center Trustree Dr. Floyd Huen, to some influential players as a Council candidate for District 4. With her husband perhaps running, Ms. Quan has motive to make things difficult for those seeking her seat. Other possible contenders include: Jill Broadhurst, an active volunteer in Montclair; Melanie Shelby, a former at-large Council candidate who recently returned to Oakland from Washington DC; Scott Jackson, an Assistant District Attorney who had considered running for Mayor; Libby Schaaf, a personal friend of mine who is a life-long civic leader native to D4; and Clinton Killian, the former at-large Council candidate and Paramount Boardmember. Though the filing period isn’t until August, Ms. Broadhurst has already announced she’s running and it’s likely others will announce by mid-Spring. Oakland may be in for a long, hot election.

Jean Quan is now Vice Mayor Quan, as of January 19th. Last year, when Jane Brunner upset Ignacio de la Fuente’s plans to remain Council President, Mr. de la Fuente was given the Vice Mayor position as a consolation prize. This wasn’t merely a title, though – at the time there was speculation that Dellums would resign as Mayor to take a position in DC or even as an ambassador, elevating Mr. de la Fuente to Mayor. Since Ms. Quan’s mayoral ambitions do not enjoy the support of Ms. Brunner or Mr. de la Fuente, her ascension to Vice Mayor is a clear signal that they do not expect Mayor Dellums to go anywhere. Recently joined by Green Party member and free-parking advocate Don Macleay, Vice Mayor Quan and former State Senator Don Perata are running active if low-key campaigns ten months in advance of election day. The campaign won’t get going in full force until Mayor Dellums formally announces he’s not running for reelection, freeing his loyalists and others who hold him in esteem to escape the sidelines. If the Mayor has any sympathy for overextended activists, he will wait until the summer.

Three years ago today, V Smoothe and I started this blog, FutureOakland (then on blogspot). We were disappointed by media coverage of the mayor’s race, and felt the minority of Oaklanders opposed to growth and revitalizing the city were completely dominating the public discussion of Oakland’s future. Under the reactionary handle of OaklandNative, I hoped to help move public discussion in favor of a more informed and more hopeful vision for this beautiful city’s success. Three years later, that goal has been largely realized.

It was not long ago that any discussion of redeveloping downtown was clouded by the angst of those wishing to preserve the failed past. Now, Oakland and East Bay residents take justifiable pride in the rebirth of Uptown as an entertainment destination, and countless neighborhoods have rediscovered their identities and are demanding their rightful share of city attention. Three years ago city government was regarded as problematic because of the influence of “greedy” developers; now the public is aware of the timidity of our elected officials and the enormous self-imposed barriers to economic success. Wednesday night’s meeting of the Planning Commission on the downtown zoning update feature a much younger and more hopeful crowd than perhaps the commission has seen in its history. While I may not agree with everyone who was there, I agree that they should offer their practical and optimistic vision to public officials. I am sure that this blog helped drive the ever-higher public meeting attendance that Oakland has experienced for the last year or so.

I don’t necessarily mean to take credit for the dozens of committed activists who have shaken up a complacent City Hall in the last few years, or for the New Media explosion allowing Oaklanders to understand the context and impact of city policy and cultural change for the first time in perhaps decades. Maybe I was just a little ahead of the curve. Of the three major Oakland blogs that predate mine, one is still kicking. But, as I am often reminded by longtime politicos, Oakland’s public discussion is light-years ahead of where it was when Ron Dellums was elected Mayor on a platform of nonsense.

Real change, whether you call it shaping the future of Oakland or creating a better Oakland, does not come from reporting alone. Since starting this blog I have become not only more informed, but more engaged. I have joined several civic organizations, taken leadership roles, and found my political niche. I have learned that, while full-throated advocacy (always nuanced and well-founded, to be sure) may make for exciting blogging, making a positive impact in the community means working with others. We Oaklanders are a clever and mostly well-meaning lot; civic engagement has been rewarding and thought-provoking.

So while I am thrilled that so many bloggers are lighting up cyberspace with a wealth of thought and information about every facet of life in this complicated city, and of course everyone should totally follow my Twitter, I ask the reader to do more than just read these brilliant blogs, but to take a more active role in the future of our great city. Volunteering, attending public meetings, starting a neighborhood organization, cleaning a local park on Earth Day, and emailing city councilmembers are the tools with which we make a stronger, healthier Oakland. Individually, we each only have so much time and so many issues that excite our attention, but together, we contribute to creating a thriving community.

Of course, because of the legal difference between taxes and set-aside laws, Kids First 2 passed and Measure NN, to increase cops, did not, despite receiving thousands more votes. Though, as a set-aside, the threshold for passage was lower for OO (an option that anti-crime activists had considered in the Spring), nonetheless the difference in votes, about 3000, shows that cops are indeed more popular than kids’ programs. The difference in campaigns only reinforces this point.

NN met with far stiffer opposition than OO. Opposition came from those influential over potential Yes votes: the anti-police argument was strangely missing from this election, even from its most strident proponents, Councilmember Nancy Nadel (who sat the entire election out, as the only Councilmember not to endorse either Council candidate) and PUEBLO. The Safety First funding mandate’s leaders opposed NN, as did anti-crime advocates like Charles Pine and Ignacio de la Fuente (PDF). Support from Mayor Dellums and the Chamber of Commerce consisted of weak mailers sent only to poll voters. Despite this, the measure won 54% of Oakland votes. The consensus for cops, even without the support of activists, is clear.

In October, No on OO campaigners including Sharon Cornu of the Alameda Central Labor Council and Susan Montauk of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board begged the City Council at Open Forum to campaign against the measure. They didn’t. No on OO only had the funds to send a mailer to absentee voters (Yes on OO sent a mailer to poll voters), and I never saw Councilmembers do more than a make brief mention in their newsletters. The old and new media fell in against OO but their influence is limited, and the largest, the Chronicle, didn’t do Oakland endorsements. Overall, OO was a low-information campaign that most voters probably decided just by looking at the ballot question.

OO was packaged, deceptively, as a costless means of keeping existing youth-serving programs. NN was a tax increase to expand policing resources. Three thousand more Oaklanders voted to tax themselves for more police than to keep existing children’s programs for free. In November’s election, Oakland voters were more supportive of cops than kids.

Before the clock runs out on election interest, this is the first of two blogs noting electoral trends.

Real estate development is a political football in many cities in California, with some battles reaching the ballot box. This November, NIMBY initiatives across the state were defeated. The three most radical anti-growth measures in California were Measure KK in Berkeley (anti-Bus Rapid Transit), Measures V and W in Redwood City (wetlands preservation), and Measure T in Santa Monica (cap on commercial construction). All lost, by substantial margins.

Regular readers of this and other blogs know that Bus Rapid Transit’s showdown in Berkeley was followed closely by transit activists. I was part of the No on KK campaign, which won with 77% of residents voting No. Measure KK received more attention than anything else on the Berkeley or even East Bay ballot. The media, from the blogs to the Daily Planet to the Chronicle, devoted far more space over the course of the year to Measure KK than to Berkeley mayor’s race, the wide-open City Council seat, or Oakland and regional measures. Now BRT opponents are arguing that people voted based on No on KK’s excellent mailer and not because they support BRT on Telegraph Avenue, but the overwhelming margin of defeat and the great deal of substantive public discussion shows that voters support changing car lanes to other uses.

Several years ago, Cargill Inc sold their pink-hued, salt-producing wetlands to the state in a large and complicated deal, while reserving two profitable portions to offset the cost of the land. In Redwood City, influential Oakland-based nonprofit Save The Bay placed a measure on the ballot to upend this deal and prevent development on a newly-created parcel by requiring a two-thirds vote to change its General Plan designation to open space. In response, the City Council placed a measure requiring only a simple majority vote. In the end, voters rejected both measures, Save the Bay’s W by 63%.

Arguably the most radically anti-growth local ballot measure was in Santa Monica. City Councilmember Bobby Shriver, working with a local NIMBY group, sponsored an initiative to cap commercial construction at 75,000 square feet. Not only would that entirely preclude office development, it would also prevent retail and urban mixed-use (housing over retail) projects. Much like Smart Growth links transportation and growth, so did Mr. Shriver and other supporters of Measure T attempt to convince voters that ending growth would somehow “fight traffic.” Also like KK, Measure T enjoyed a sympathetic media. Yet just as KK supporters failed to convince Berkeleyans that next-generation bus service would worsen traffic, Santa Monicans rejected T’s traffic argument by 56%.

There are other examples: Beverly Hills voters narrowly approved construction of three hotel / residential skyscrapers on the ugly white concrete high-rise Beverly Hilton, referended by NIMBYs; and Moraga’s restrictive Measure K was voted down by 56%. On the other hand, San Francisco voters approved NIMBY-in-chief Aaron Peskin’s powerful Landmarks Preservation Commission (Measure J), but there was no argument filed against it and it was lost in the confusing morass of San Francisco’s ballot questions, A-V. Without opposition, it earned only 57% of votes. The failure of anti-growth measures across California show that Smart Growth proponents can craft winning messages, and that electoral sympathy for NIMBYs and anti-transit activists is low.

Last Tuesday, voters set a course for Oakland’s future. Certain races have something to tell engaged Oaklanders about voters’ wishes, the effectiveness of different kinds of campaigns, and about the current and future policymaking boards that govern our city and our transit service. The passage of Measure OO (and failure of Measure NN), Rebecca Kaplan’s big victory over Kerry Hamill, and a host of pro-transit votes, were the key choices facing voters this cycle.

Measure OO vs the rest of the budget

My only disappointment in the local ballot measures was the narrow passage of Measure OO, also known as Kids First 2. As I wrote at the time, Measure OO did not meet the ballot deadline and the City Council was not under a legal obligation to place the measure on the November ballot. They may have been compelled to call a special election for it, but of course that would have been a better bet than the November election. Now the city is going to do a special election anyway, and they’ll be under great pressure to compromise with Kids First and give them at least some money from the strapped budget.

This potentially gigantic hit to the city budget is the City Council’s fault for not doing a special election in the first place or placing a competing measure on the ballot (not a compromise, a measure that would just do what the Council already did but trump KF2, a common legislative tactic). Now OO is in a good position, even though it wasn’t the voters’ highest priority on Election Day. Measure NN, to raise taxes to pay for police, received thousands more votes yet is a failure. Neither NN nor OO did much of a campaign: a friend of mine received a four-page glossy mailer promoting NN after Election Day, and its slogan sounded like it was translated from an Asian language (“Get Involved! Today Oakland!”). OO sent a mailer only to poll voters, and the No on OO campaign sent a mailer only to absentee voters. In such a low-energy election, the Council’s actions framing the ballot would have been decisive.

Kaplan vs. Hamill

I think a lot of Rebecca Kaplan’s big victory can be attributed to her preparation for the job of running Oakland. Ms. Kaplan outperformed Kerry Hamill at endorsement interviews and forums, and won allies in blogs and among the politically-involved people who judge endorsement interviews. This election may not prove the power of local opinion-makers, but their almost-unanimous backing of Ms. Kaplan certainly undercut the support Ms. Hamill had from elected officials. In the end, Ms. Kaplan’s impressive endorsement list made her a very safe choice for the average voter.

Of course, more voters were exposed to Rebecca Kaplan’s supporters because Kerry Hamill just didn’t do nearly enough to win the seat. She admits she only had the money to wage half a campaign, and couldn’t mobilize enough volunteers to match Kaplan’s access to the Democratic Party Headquarters. I never received mail or a call from Ms. Hamill at anytime in this year-long campaign.

Elections are not necessarily about issues, but Rebecca Kaplan did identify and articulate some priorities that are attractive to certain interest groups, like supporting dense transit-oriented development, implementing the Conley Report, sprucing up downtown, and improving public transportation and bicycling. These things can mean different things to different people: condo developers as well as medicinal marijuana dispensaries see opportunities in a more successful downtown; labor unions and businesses like her call to increase revenue with more business; and with a holistic view of transportation, there really is something for everyone.

As one wag observed, Kerry Hamill’s defeat shows that Don Perata cannot install a puppet on the City Council by not campaigning or raising money for her. It also reinforces how difficult it is to run a come-from-behind campaign in Oakland. Alone in the booth, if they had no other information, voters decided that an AC Transit Board Member was more qualified than a School Board member to be promoted to the City Council, and frankly, they’re right. Voters also endorsed AC Transit’s performance more directly on down-ballot questions.

BRT vs KK, Peeples vs Roy, Measure VV

Voters in Berkeley overwhelmingly defeated a measure that was framed as a way to stop Bus Rapid Transit service on Telegraph. A far larger majority shot down the anti-bus measure than endorsed Tom Bates or the winning incumbents and new councilmembers. 77% is almost unheard-of, and is such a sweeping majority that it cannot be interpreted as anything but a strong rejection of NIMBYism, at least as it applies to transit improvements.

I draw several conclusions from the vote. First, it shows that the angry and active minority of citizens who do not agree with most City Council decisions are not representative of many voters (Tom Bates’ reelection is more evidence of this). Second, the tactics and arguments of proponents, mainly to do with the alleged harm of Bus Rapid Transit, fell flat. I really don’t know whether most people read the Berkeley Daily Planet, but either they don’t or they don’t agree with its editorial direction. The rest of the media is fairly hostile to BRT as well, but voters clearly are not. Finally, the No on KK campaign (which I was a part of) did an excellent job shaping a simple message, getting the support of local leaders, and communicating with voters in many media. But the margin was totally unexpected, and can’t be interpreted as anything but that voters want the Berkeley City Council to move forward with BRT.

Chris Peeples also won a huge margin in his reelection effort against Joyce Roy, who had made some noise in the media. She wrote a strongly populist ballot statement criticizing AC Transit for everything imaginable, but failed to convince more than 35% of the voters. The successful passage of an additional parcel tax to compensate for state cuts to AC Transit’s funding was another endorsement of AC Transit’s recent direction.

City Council: AC Transit Director Rebecca Kaplan

Though I first met Rebecca Kaplan seven years ago during an internship at a transit advocacy organization where she worked, I was slow to support her for this November’s election. I didn’t vote for her in 2000. I endorsed Clinton Killian in June, because of his experience as a transit director, a planning commissioner, a businessman, and a supporter of the arts. I definitely consider Kerry Hamill to be Oakland’s best School Board member, and I appreciate her endorsements from elected officials I respect, particularly Councilmembers De La Fuente and Kernighan, and State Senator Perata. But I’m voting for Rebecca Kaplan, and I fully endorse her to any engaged Oaklander.

I didn’t follow most of Mr. Killian’s endorsers to Rebecca Kaplan, and I didn’t decide to favor her just because Sean Sullivan urged his supporters to volunteer for her. Ms. Kaplan earned my vote herself. She earned it by engaging the blogoaksphere and new media to communicate policy priorities that support her pro-growth progressive agenda; by providing detailed and well-thought-out answers to questions in the mainstream media, at debates, and in endorsement interviews; and by out-campaigning her opponent. I especially appreciate how visible and accessible Ms. Kaplan has been at community events throughout the city, and I look forward to her continuing to be accountable and accessible as a Councilmember. Vote Kaplan.

AC Transit Director: Director Chris Peeples

I’ve had many opportunities to talk to Chris Peeples about transit over the last two years, and I have found him to be competent, engaged and well-informed, as a longtime Transit Director should be. As a former Oakland City Council aide, Mr. Peeples understands the need to work closely with Oakland. His endorsements from many local elected officials underscore his ability to see how AC Transit can support plans of other government bodies and agencies. He prioritizes increasing service on the East Bay’s high-capacity trunk lines, which dovetails with East Bay cities’ need for transportation improvements and transit-oriented development. Mr. Peeples is fairly accessible and impressive in endorsement interviews. He deserves another term.

Challenger Joyce Roy, a retired architect, does not share the perspective needed to create a more transit-oriented community. In my professional life, I have found her to be an opponent of transit-oriented developments in the DTO and not understanding of pedestrian commutes made possible by mixed-use cities, though she is a leader of pro-growth Temescal group ULTRA. She doesn’t support Bus Rapid Transit, the world’s most successful and cost-effective transportation system, and it’s not clear why. Her criticism of the Van Hool buses does not acknowledge that they speed ingress and egress and have more standing room, which has greatly improved trips I take on high-capacity lines like the 1 and 51. She also overstates the alternatives to European bus manufacturing. Chris Peeples will continue to do a good job, and steady leadership is needed for AC Transit to implement its ambitious projects.

Judge: Phil Daly

I decided to vote for Phil Daly because Dennis Hayashi’s message is too political. He talks about his work in Clinton’s Civil Rights office and as a public-interest attorney, and as the spouse of San Leandro (and parts of East Oakland) Assemblymember Mary Hayashi, has the endorsements of labor and Democratic Party groups, which is unnecessary. Alameda County Superior Court is not the place for a judge with an agenda, as Mr. Hayashi’s literature implies. Phil Daly has been a competent Deputy District Attorney and has a strong understanding of local criminal law, and has the endorsements of respected officials. His email about his son being a victim of a restaurant robbery in Oakland is more relevant than Hayashi’s ideological message. Vote Phil Daly for Judge.

Measure N: NO

We just passed a tax for the schools, and the way this tax was conceived is fishy. I do not think that the problem with the Oakland Unified School District is money. This decade, the number of students has plummeted but tax receipts have increased. The OUSD may have one of the highest per-student funding levels in the country. Voters must demand administrative reform, and not continue to subsidize a failing district with additional funding. Vote no.

Measure NN: NO

Like Measure N, Measure NN rewards a failing and overfunded bureaucracy with more money. The Oakland Police Department is a total disaster. As the number of officers rises, overtime has increased and arrests have fallen. A senior officer characterized Sgt. Longmire’s too-close relationship with Your Black Muslim Bakery as “community policing.” Oakland desperately needs a new, outside Chief who will shake up the department and reduce overtime and waste. Oakland does not need a new tax to support business as usual. Vote no.

Measure OO: NO!

Oakland’s budget problems were put pretty starkly two weeks ago, with the city slashing countless services and only managing to restore a portion of arts funding even after a public outcry. The existing Kids First set-aside has increased in value even as the number of children in Oakland has fallen. The programs are poorly-monitored and not independently audited. Besides the fact the city can’t afford doubling any set-aside, outside programs are not the first place funding should be dedicated. Libraries, anyone? Vote no.

Measure VV: YES

Read an excellent endorsement of it at Living in the O.

Measure WW: YES

Read A Better Oakland’s endorsement of this tax extension for the East Bay Regional Park District.

Prop 1A: NO

I am the first person to take a bullet train. I love Los Angeles, and I don’t have a car. I would certainly seize the opportunity to take a weekend to visit my grandparents and hit the downtown clubs. Sounds fabulous, right? But an investment of this size needs to be an asset for the entire state, not just for SF-to-LA day trippers.

The alignment of this proposed bullet train has been explained very well at TransBay blog. Basically, at the request of the same San Jose developers that brought us BART-to-San Jose and VTA (a Santa Clara Countywide light-rail system that carries fewer people than one bus line in Oakland), SF officials conspired to use the Pacheco Pass, an undeveloped area south of San Jose, rather than the Altamont Pass, the exurb-laden route between Alameda and San Joaquin counties.

This means that the East Bay, the largest part of the Bay Area, and the Modesto-Tracy area, the most urbanized part of the northern Central Valley, and even Sacramento cannot be served the initial line or alignment. To bring service to Oakland, which is much closer to the rest of the Bay Area than SF, and then on to Sacramento, would require another line. While SF will then have three passenger rail lines connecting it to San Jose, the East Bay will continue to have not a single passenger-only rail connection.

I don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but with an alignment that skips the largest part of the Bay Area, fails to connect with Sacramento and Modesto, and brings transit service through a completely undeveloped wetlands, is it even good? Unfortunately, it’s not. Vote NO.

Prop 2: NO

I’m not into animal rights I don’t agree with the animal-rights movement, and agricultural regulation by ballot initiative really should not encouraged. I mean, animal activists got my precious foie gras banned (though you wouldn’t know it in the DTO), so if this is as moderate as backers say, why can’t they get the legislature to pass it? Trendy social movements, like everyone else, should be greeted with great skepticism when they try to legislate by initiative.

Prop 3: YES

The children’s hospital bonds can be rightly criticized for many of the same reasons voters turned down Alameda County funding for Oakland Children’s Hospital earlier this year. But these bonds are being paid by the whole state and Oakland will get a disproportionate amount. That’s like free money. Vote YES.

Prop 4: NO

This initiative is anti-choice and also discriminates against young people.

Prop 5: YES

I voted yes on this because I do think the California prison system shouldn’t lock up so many nonviolent offenders and should place more emphasis on rehabilitation. The costs of unrehabilitated prisoners are often borne right here in Oakland. But of course I generally think that issues should be settled through the legislature (which is very liberal, remember), and not the ballot box. Somewhat as a protest vote, I will vote YES.

Prop 6: NO

This is a naked attempt by Republicans to divert funds to their prized cause, law enforcement and prisons, even as California struggles to meet court-mandated prison reforms. This was defeated in the Legislature and shouldn’t be on the ballot. There are also 30 revisions of criminal law, which is way too many for people to vote on. This sets a terrible precedent for creating crimes via ballot initiative. Vote NO.

Prop 7: NO

Honestly, I’m somewhat confused by these environmental initiatives that are opposed by many environmentalists. Forcing public utilities to meet unrealistic renewable energy goals by initiative is not helping the cause. It’s important to remember that initiatives (unless place by the Legislature) are laws that have failed to get enough political support to pass the Legislature and often are radical changes that cannot be modified except by another public vote. NO is always a safe vote. On this, vote NO.

Prop 8: OMFG NO

I’m not going to persuade a Prop 8 supporter here and I really don’t want to encourage their comments. But I will mention that anti-marriage forces launched a cyber-attack last night and through this morning, and have been accused of a mean-spirited public rally in Eastlake. Please give if you can, this is the most expensive state election in the entire country.

Prop 9: NO

This essentially sets new, more restrictive parole rules through initiative. Again, this is not something that should be brought through initiative. Vote NO.

Prop 10: NO

A naked money-grab by the country’s only manufacturer of natural-gas cars! This is exactly what’s wrong with the initiative process, and why I did not vote for the stem-cell research bonds.

Prop 11: YES

California does need independent redistricting. Gerrymandering is old as America itself, but increasing political segregation and sophisticated algorithms have made gerrymandering simply too effective. As everyone has heard, not one of California’s 120 legislative seats has changed parties since 2002, when the current districts went into effect. There are still two more regular elections before redistricting, so this isn’t the last chance, but this seems fair and was created by nonpartisan groups (unlike the last stab at redistricting). It also will not affect Congress. Vote YES.

Prop 12: YES

It’s just renewing bonds that aid veterans, and was placed by the legislature. Vote YES.

Boy, aren’t there too many propositions? But you can do something about that. If you vote NO on most or all of the propositions (always the safe choice), that will discourage people from placing them in the future.

For your Friday afternoon and even weekend perusing pleasure, here are a selection of endorsement blogs to help you make up your mind on November’s vote. I will provide my own endorsements next week, in two parts: state and local.

A veritable slew of blogs endorsing Rebecca Kaplan for City Council indicate that the front-runner is continuing her dominance of the race.

Berkeley’s Measure KK is drawing notice from Oaklanders as well as Berkeleyans (I am a part of the No campaign and wrote an op-ed in last week’s Berkeley Planet urging a No vote). Jeff Hobson and Becks provide the environmental and pro-transit perspective, while Westlake resident CityDweller points out that North Oaklanders will end up being underserved if Berkeley nixes BRT even just on its end. Proving that I will never, ever agree with the Green Party on anything, they declined to oppose Measure KK.

Measure OO is getting an unanimous NO vote from bloggers and newspapers alike, though the Guardian is an outlier. There’s a lively discussion on the listservs, but pundits agree that it’s simply too expensive (particularly after the Council’s painful budget vote on Tuesday). NN’s reception is more mixed, but Oaklanders are clearly in an anti-tax mood, including opposing Measure N, a tax for teachers’ pay that’s opposed by the teachers’ union.

Environmentalists are split on Prop 1A, calling it either a boondoggle or such a good idea that its terrible route can be overlooked. Joyce Roy is getting no support from bloggers (just the Green Party) in her quest to unseat Chris Peeples (I endorsed him). AC Transit’s tax measure seems to be broadly supported but all the anti-Van Hool rhetoric over the last year may hurt it.

This weekend is one of the last chances to make a difference before Nov. 4^. So get down to the United Democratic Campaign at 1915 Broadway, or the HQ of your favorite candidate, or give some money to the No on 8 campaign which badly needs it!

Today’s blog is critical of recent news. No, I’m not yet ready to comment on Mayor Dellums’ attempt to take the Second Start program away from destitute, illiterate mothers of small children, or put an end to community gardens, or reduce library service by a quarter. No, the surprisingly tiny savings from eliminating such direct services are not the focus of this blog, and neither is the evidence that Oakland’s city workers are the highest-paid in the entire country and are significantly overpaid by several measures. This blog is not about the bad budget. It’s about the bad media.

The SF Weekly publishes parts of former Berkeley Daily Planet reporter Judith Scherr’s email to colleagues explaining that she quit the NIMBY mouthpiece because she could not longer stand editor Becky O’Malley’s constant meddling to make articles more ideologically bent. The Weekly’s comments are hilariously dismissive of the Planet. BeyondChron, which occasionally swaps articles with the Planet, rises to Ms. O’Malley’s defense, but doesn’t address the issue of altering articles to be more one-sided (for example, this article about a Berkeley hearing on BRT is so different from what a friend at the meeting reported to constitute disinformation).

The always-relevant SF Bay Guardian, in a pioneering work of political journalism, reveals that former Don Perata Chief of Staff Kerry Hamill enjoys the support of Senator Perata in her bid for the Oakland City Council. The article also handily summarizes all the relationships between Councilmembers and interest groups in a single phrase, which is quite illuminating. Not!

The Chronicle’s popular urban design critic John King discusses the new Cathedral of Christ the Light, but completely neglects its unfortunate pedestrian presence that is the talk of downtown and Westlake. That, and the, um, yonic design concept. Also, he thinks the building is modest?

That lazy blogger from The DTO finally posts something.

The New York Times shows some love for Oakland’s ambitious office developers, but kinda skips the issue of who exactly will occupy these new commercial highrises. Meanwhile, a prominent North Oaklander calls for exorbitant business taxes to balance the budget on a neighborhood listserv.

After running biased articles in favor of the city’s “industrial preservation” policy adopted this Spring, the Trib now criticizes industrial pollution and thinks that converting industrial land to housing helps revitalize neighborhoods. Confusing!

When I’m disappointed in the MSM, I can go directly to the primary source or just make my own news through activism. Tomorrow (Thursday), there’s an opportunity to do both. Rather than read analysis of the pundits’ analysis of public reaction to the Vice Presidential debate, you can watch it yourself with a crowd of energetic young Democrats at downtown’s Geoffrey’s Inner Circle. The event is a fundraiser for not-quite-so-establishment Council candidate Rebecca Kaplan, whose election would be big news. See you newsmakers there!