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.

Today, the attention of the blogoaksphere has turned to the open seat on the AC Transit Board. The largest bus-only transit agency in the United States will appoint a member to replace Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, and transit activists as well as other concerned leaders are weighing in. I am proud to report that East Bay transit advocates have conducted an endorsement process, and chosen Elizabeth Echols (PDF) as the best candidate to replace Ms. Kaplan.

Last year I asked a respected community leader to apply for this seat. After seriously considering it, he declined due to other commitments to important causes. Since I did not know any of the candidates personally or from their work as transit advocates, I felt it was important for transit activists to have a role in the process of choosing our new transit director. In January I invited several leaders of different transit advocacy groups to meet and discuss the open AC Transit seat. We decided that, instead of putting forth one of our own as a candidate, we would offer our joint endorsement.

We put together a detailed questionnaire and sent it to the candidates that we had heard about (including three of the four finalists). The questionnaire was created with input from leaders of every East Bay transit advocacy group: Walk Oakland Bike Oakland, Friends of BRT, the No on KK Committee, Alameda Transit Advocates, the City of Oakland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley, Livable Berkeley, the East Bay Bicycle Coalition, and TransForm. (I am on the Oakland BPAC and was on the No on KK campaign committee.)

We scheduled interviews with the respondents and talked to them about their qualifications, their vision and priorities for the agency, and followed-up on some of their answers to our questions. I attended all but one interview, and found them incredibly informative. The candidates explained different facets of the challenges facing AC Transit: one explained exactly how the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s totally ass-backwards financing priorities screw AC Transit (apparently they think bus stops are just as useful to the regional transportation infrastructure as new desks for administrators), another had a very in-depth understanding of the position of the drivers and mechanics (they are concerned about working conditions, and understand the agency’s financial pressures), and another related his experiences as a rider advocate and how the agency works with community groups (rather well, in his opinion, as long they know about a project).

Walking to our endorsement meeting in transit-proximate Old Oakland, I didn’t know who would be our consensus choice. There are many strong candidates. But one offered the combination of experience, new ideas, and appropriate priorities that appealed to everyone at the table: Alameda County Democratic Central Committeemember Elizabeth Echols. A former Google executive who served on the technology cluster of the Obama-Biden Transition Team, she has a fresh perspective on the agency, new ideas about improving service using technology and data, but also a solid grasp of the importance of service reliability to attracting and maintaining an expanded ridership base. Her energy and political connections will allow her to help the agency get approval for the best Bus Rapid Transit system in the next few months, and help her work with regional, state and federal officials to improve the agency’s long-term financial health. I am pleased to be one of many local transit advocates to endorse her candidacy, and I am confident she is able to help guide AC Transit through its troubling financial times without sacrificing the needs of both “choice riders” and the transit-dependent.

It is no secret that there are many qualified individuals applying for this seat. When the Board voted on its four finalists, a former Boardmember who had applied was not among them – that’s a clear signal that the agency is extremely pleased with the quality of those who want to join the Board. With the overwhelming electoral victories racked up by AC Transit last November (78% voted no on Berkeley’s anti-BRT measure KK, and 72% of the district’s voters backed a parcel tax to make up for last year’s state budget cuts), and the caliber of those vying to lead it through a recession, it is clear that AC Transit is on the right track. All transit advocates are pleased by these developments, and the phrase “embarrassment of riches” to describe the selection of a new Boardmember has been used by more than one observer. This is a far cry from six years ago, when Rebecca Kaplan was the only well-qualified applicant for this open seat. Though transit advocates will be satisfied with any of the four finalists to represent us on the East Bay’s largest and most important transportation agency, Elizabeth Echols is the best choice, and we hope that Board will agree.

For a list of all five blogs that today endorsed Ms. Echols, see A Better Oakland’s Elizabeth Echols for AC Transit

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!

This week, everyone but the Trib is making endorsements in the many competitive elections in Oakland and the East Bay. So, like Robert Kennedy, I thought Why not? Here are my endorsements for who will make decision affecting the future of Oakland, from a transit and Smart Growth perspective.

City Council District One: Jane Brunner

I have a lot of problems with Ms. Brunner, so this endorsement comes with serious caveats. I think that she is often illprepared for meetings, as V-Smoothe pointed out, and seems to vote however the last person who got to her wants her to vote, but her staff is not as scattered as she is. I’ve already decried using Inclusionary Zoning, a rare ideological split on the Council, as a litmus test, so I’ll forgive her decade-long quest to impose price caps on condos. The real housing issue is that District One builds no affordable housing, and very little entry-level housing. I grew up in Rockridge and I’ve been forced out by the lack of development! There are fewer apartments now than there were in 1987, when Market Hall opened, and no newly-built condos. Ms. Brunner has offered little leadership on development in Temescal, instead exacerbating the neighborhood’s battles by meddling in projects (with the full consent of the rest of the Council). However, Mr. McCullough has no position on development.

The hot issue is crime, but Ms. Brunner hasn’t been particularly worse than anyone else on the Council; unlike Jean Quan and Nancy Nadel, she’s not a ringleader of the anti-cops brigade. Her shameful refusal to condemn Black Uhuru’s slander of Mr. McCullough is disturbing, but she does listen to crime concerns and is belatedly pushing for the high-tech crime-reduction strategies championed by Sean Sullivan. Honestly, I don’t see Mr. McCullough offering much in the way of crime but attention. Unlike Sean Sullivan, he doesn’t have detailed plans or a clear policy direction. I think Mr. Pine has the same problem except that he talks about the number of police relentlessly. Mr. McCullough also has no support from other councilmembers or institutions so he would probably be an ineffective councilmember.

And effectiveness is exactly what Jane Brunner offers. IZ wouldn’t have a chance if it were pushed by Nancy Nadel, but Jane Brunner knows how to work the system. For her constituents she’s delivered bicycle lanes and bike parking, the only successful Measure DD project (Studio One), and a dog park at Mosswood (which Ms. Nadel took credit for). Her staff is involved in the negotiations with CalTrans over the Caldecott Tunnel, which is entirely appropriate. She makes noises about Smart Growth and will deliver the MacArthur BART project, even if has taken fifteen years. Without an experienced opponent with a clear alternative vision, Jane Brunner deserves reelection.

City Council District Three: Sean Sullivan

This is easy. V-Smoothe wrote an excellent essay entitled Nancy Nadel Has to Go. Now., and I have little to add. Sean Sullivan has impressed many people with his well-organized, aggressive campaign and positive, detailed vision for the future of the District (I’m part of his campaign). Greg Hodge barely got on the ballot, and has run an invisible campaign that is short on specifics. Sean Sullivan offers energetic, hands-on leadership at exactly the time Oakland needs it most, and his record delivering a multimillion-dollar youth center and effective violence prevention programs is the experience City Hall needs. He is endorsed by Desley Brooks and Pat Kernighan, the two swing votes on the Council who are also the most junior. The ranks of newer councilmembers, not beholden to the old power structure, deserve more members.

City Council District Five: Ignacio de la Fuente

Ignacio is the best member of the Oakland City Council. He is the most respectful and attentive to public speakers, his staff are the most open to new ideas and new activists, and he has been there for public transit and Smart Growth every time. He attempted to lobby the MTC for an East Bay HSR alignment (but was thwarted by Nadel), which is perhaps the biggest single transit issue of the decade. Under his leadership, Fruitvale has become a charming, thriving district. In the mid-nineties, when I lived in Rockridge, nobody thought of going to Fruitvale for dinner or shopping. Now many people do, and the Transit Village is a model for the entire region. Jingletown exists because of Ignacio’s vision of reclaiming industrial land and creating access to the waterfront. Even if his leading opponent wasn’t an inexperienced businessman with a checkered past, Ignacio de la Fuente would deserve reelection.

City Council Seven: Larry Reid

Larry Reid is good. He stands up for what’s right, not what’s politically correct, like with plastic bags or industrial zoning. He does a great job attracting retail and residential development to his economically depressed district. I hear his constituent services aren’t very good, but I don’t see Clifford Gilmore offering anything better. Running a terrible campaign doesn’t help matters. This is a great example of the Guardian’s endorsements revealing themselves to be utterly irrational.

City Council At-large: Clinton Killian

This is a crowded field but honestly the choice wasn’t that hard. Charles Pine is one-note and wouldn’t be effective on the Council. Frank Rose is awesome but he gives so much to the community without being on the Council, so I don’t think he really brings much to this particular role. Kerry Hamill doesn’t bother to campaign downtown at all, is nowhere on transportation and development (though the big developers love her for some reason), has no credibility on the crime issue that she’s pushing, and says annoying things that are obviously political, like we need fewer political staff, even though she is political staff (she was Don Perata’s Chief of Staff and is now a Policy Analyst for BART). Rebecca Kaplan is appealingly energetic, and says a lot of the right things, but she doesn’t really have a track record of clear positions. I need to know more about her.

Clinton Killian, despite some minor business troubles years back, offers a great mix of experience for the City Council. He’s been on the AC Transit Board, the Planning Commission, and serves on the Paramount Board. His commitment to downtown, smart growth, transportation and the arts is unquestionable, and those are my priorities. I also appreciate how he brings together two often-squabbling sectors of the business community, the mainstream businesses and the ethnic businesses. His campaign has a clear message and is well-targeted, and he has a great shot at the runoff despite being outspent. That’s a good sign.

School Board District One: Brian Rogers

Who cares that he’s a Republican? At least he has something to say about education that’s relevant. Jody London, who just oozes politician, managed to squeeze green-collar jobs, energy independence and Save The Bay into the School Board debate, and said that she had no position on charter schools but is against them. Her entire campaign appears to be based around the fact that Mr. Rogers is a Republican. I think the race is pretty clear-cut: Rogers represents reform, London the status quo. She’s endorsed by the outgoing Boardmember, the Teachers’ Union and all the usual suspects. Brian Rogers supports educational innovation and charters, involvement from business, and continuing the Expect Success reforms opposed by Jody London and the Teachers’ Union.

AD 14: Tony Thurmond

I agree with the Express, the Chronicle and the Trib that the Richmond Councilmember is best to represent the district, rather than a Berkeley politician. His resume, running a successful nonprofit serving at-risk youth, reminds me of Sean Sullivan. Kris Worthington and Nancy Skinner are awful, the perfect embodiment of everything that’s wrong with the Berkeley City Council (NIMBYism meets Communism). I worry that Phil Polakoff will take too many moderate North Oakland / Berkeley votes and hand the race to Nancy Skinner, unfortunately. No runoffs in a partisan primary! But if you live in this district, which I don’t, please vote Tony Thurmond.

State Senate: Wilma Chan

Since we’re all getting two pieces of mail a day about Loni Hancock and Wilma Chan, many people may have made up their minds. I think the mail itself is a pretty good way to judge the candidates: Ms. Chan has a clear argument, that she accomplished more when she was in the Assembly than Ms. Hancock did (that’s true). Ms. Hancock, on the other hand, is all over the place, bragging about big-time endorsements one day and then bashing Wilma Chan for not having enough endorsements the next. Her mailers are full of stupid quotes like “the courage to lead” and dumb photos of her staring over the Berkeley Marina or talking to college students. Anyway, this one is easy: Wilma Chan represented Oakland and Alameda, Loni Hancock Berkeley and points north. Gotta go with the home team.

Predictions:

City Council: all the incumbents win outright except Nancy Nadel. Nadel may be bested by Sean Sullivan, who has reached out to people his opponents haven’t contacted, and seems to have the momentum heading into the final weekend when the undecideds are making up their minds. As for the at-large, Rebecca Kaplan will make the runoff with either Hamill or Killian in second place.

School Board: Incumbents in D5 and D7, Olu in D3 (Jumoke Hodge will do as poorly as her husband, because they didn’t campaign very much). There will probably be a runoff in D1, since Tennessee Reed has some name recognition and Rogers and London seem to be dueling it out pretty evenly. Rogers has a clear message so he could win, though I may be overestimating the voters’ willingness to overlook party registration.

Assembly: Thurmond could make it, otherwise Skinner. Polakoff’s base is too narrow but he’s probably done lots of mailers. Thurmond’s mailers contain typos but the demographics are on his side (everyone else is from Berkeley, he’s from the other half of the district).

State Senate: Wilma Chan will pull it off. The endorsements Hancock’s touting aren’t going to matter all that much, since Ms. Chan has great name recognition. Ms. Hancock is a divisive figure in her own Assembly district, so she can’t count on her half of the Senate district serving as a base. Chan’s mailers have a clearer message, as I said before, and so are more effective. I guess we’ll see on June Third!

As the elections come closer, voters are deluged with mailers and get many calls from politicians and volunteers seeking their support. Candidates and their literature trumpet endorsements, which the organizations issuing find very important. Endorsements are thought to be representative of the various interests that make up the endorsing groups. Curiously, the County Central Democrat Committee, Alameda County Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Guardian, Central Labor Council had strikingly similar endorsements: Rebecca Kaplan for at-large, Jane Brunner and Nancy Nadel for reelection, and against Ignacio de la Fuente and Reid for their own reelections. Given the supposed influence of incumbents, particularly the Council President, it’s unexpected that supposedly establishment organizations are joining many issue-oriented or simply rebellious voices to produce what can be termed a slate.

All of these endorsements are contradictory. Let’s look at blogger bete noire Nancy Nadel and her endorsements, which she trumpeted in a recent colorful mailer. She has the endorsement of the Bay Guardian, which looked like she wrote it (no journalist could be out-of-it enough to believe she’s a hard worker). The Guardian, as a supposedly youthful voice, consistently stands up for artists and musicians. Yet Nancy Nadel called the cops on the Art Murmur, shut down a dancehall concert and attempted to kick artists out of live/work in industrial West Oakland. Without mentioning her Gen X competitor, homeless shelter director Sean Sullivan, the Guardian stood on the wrong side of their carefully-cultivated generation gap. This also goes for the East Bay Young Democrats.

The Sierra Club’s endorsements were also bizarre, and not just regarding District 3. Nadel is attempting to limit transit-oriented development in the DTO, held up the City Council’s endorsement of the more environmentally-friendly Altamont Pass bullet-train route, and is nowhere on Bus Rapid Transit (and stood by idly as the Broadway Shopper Shuttle was ended in 2003). She did author the plastic bag ordinance but it was struck down in court, which isn’t very impressive. Ignacio de la Fuente has been an outspoken voice on transit and transit-oriented development, and he and Larry Reid have been the city’s most successful creators of new urban open space. Jane Brunner is also nowhere on transit, considers Transit-Oriented Development to be only government-sponsored mid-rise developments immediately adjacent to BART stations, and I can’t think of anything she’s done that seems very green.

The Central Labor Council endorsed Nadel for the first time, and declined to endorse Ignacio even though he is vice-president of a union, author of Oakland’s Living Wage and Local Hire ordinances, and reportedly did very well in their interview. The Alameda County Democratic Party declined to endorse incumbent de la Fuente, and gave Green-turned-Democrat Rebecca Kaplan the endorsement over longtime elected Democrats Clinton Killian and Kerry Hammill. The teachers’ union, Green Party, and ACORN also followed the slate, though without an interview process.

The Central Democratic Committee endorsements can be partly explained because the current committeemembers were elected when Dellums was elected mayor, so were part of his slate and therefore enemies of Ignacio. But Nadel has always voted for Ignacio for Council President, and Sean Sullivan had an early endorser in Desley Brooks (and is endorsed by Kathy Neal of the DCCC and Mario Juarez’s campaign). The Sierra Club didn’t give Sullivan an interview, explaining that they routinely endorse incumbents they’ve worked with before. But they had an interview in D5. Many of the Guardian’s endorsements were entirely out-to-lunch, but they certainly got the memo Brunner and Nadel should be reelected, Ignacio and Reid unseated, and Kaplan elected. If internal Council President politics don’t explain it, and it doesn’t fit with the agendas of the endorsing groups, what else is left?

Misplaced ideology is the common thread that links this slate. Though most Council business is conducted unanimously, and there is a strong consensus in Oakland over the general outlines of the future of the city, there have been a few policies that have split the Council and possibly the electorate. The main issue is Inclusionary Zoning, which the Council deadlocked on way back in October 2006. Mario Juarez, despite being a realtor and former ally of Ignacio de la Fuente, now supports a 25% mandatory set-aside. Nancy Nadel (and Jean Quan who is campaigning for her) keeps trying to bring up IZ, to little apparent success, and she also said last week people should vote for Rebecca Kaplan because she supports IZ (though I don’t really get that impression).

Beyond IZ, many of these groups are made up of non-Oaklanders (like the DCCC, East Bay Young Democrats, the Guardian, and the Sierra Club) or are dominated by the public-employee unions (the OEA teachers’ union, the County Central Labor Council, and arguably ACORN because they get a lot of help from EBASE). The unions want compliant councilmembers, and out-of-towners are easily swayed by ideology and abstract issues like IZ and don’t know anything about blight and food access.

I agree with the “slate” choices regarding the reelection of the four sitting Councilmembers. At least, I agree that Ignacio de la Fuente and Larry Reid stand for something different than Jane Brunner and Nancy Nadel. I outlined above how many of the endorsements, particularly the East Bay Young Democrats and Sierra Club, are counter to what the groups ostensibly represent. This election is a particularly good example of why it’s important for voters to make informed judgments for themselves. An environmentalist could mistakenly think that the Sierra Club’s endorsements have something to do with a politician’s ideas and track record on the environment, or a hipster could assume the East Bay Young Democrats are a proxy for forward-thinking and youth-friendly leadership. That would be entirely wrong.

Transportation and land use are intimately linked. The combination of better public transportation and transit-oriented development is the Bay Area’s best hope for reducing the pollution, congestion, and related problems associated with the region’s over-dependence on the private automobile. Yet, instead of leading the way, Berkeley, in the form of a relatively small group of activist neighbors, is fighting the trend vigorously.

This Tuesday, April 22, the Berkeley City Council will vote on a proposal that would significantly downzone the major transportation corridors. Essentially that proposal is exactly the same as Measure P, which 80 percent of Berkeley’s voters defeated in 2002.

I followed Berkeley’s protracted zoning-by-committee Downtown Plan process and always check the Berkeley Daily Planet, which seems to be that city’s only news source, but had never heard of any downzoning effort. Why would the Berkeley Daily refrain from applauding neighbors’ efforts to keep newcomers out with restrictive land-use policies? Then I remembered an ongoing and rather odd discussion of a density bonus that comes to the Berkeley City Council today:

Two different versions of a proposed municipal density bonus are on the council’s agenda, one recommended by the Planning Commission and the other by the city planning staff.

The regulations would govern the size and shape of multi-story mixed-use housing projects of the sort now being built along the city’s major traffic arteries.

The commission is urging the city to pass an ordinance that will take effect before the June 3 general election to offset the possible impacts of Proposition 98.

In Oakland, there has been a little discussion of density bonuses, which are available to developers who include price-restricted (“affordable”) units in residential projects by state law. The density bonus functions as a voluntary Inclusionary Zoning program, similar to Los Angeles or Massachusetts though much less used (one project in Temescal is applying for it; I don’t know of any other use of this ten-year-old law in Oakland). Desley Brooks specifically directed the Blue Ribbon Commission to look at density bonuses as they attempted to draft an affordable-housing ordinance, but of course the commission did not, and IZ advocates ignore the density bonuses that would be consequence of their proposal. As a result, few people understand that once cities adopt mandatory IZ regulations, they lose some control over development, which prevents municipalities from adopting IZ just to discourage development.

It appears that Berkeley’s planning staff is adept at using the state’s density bonus to move projects past a skeptical Zoning Adjustments Board and Planning Commission hearings dominated by outraged NIMBYs. Having caught on to the ruse, the ZAB has been for some time asking for an ordinance that allows them to limit development further. Much like Jane Brunner tried to pass a poorly-thought-out IZ ordinance before Prop 90 came to a vote in late 2006, it appears the Berkeley City Council is sufficiently cowed by the spectre of Prop 98, and will radically downzone their transit corridors in order to assure that Berkeley’s future development includes price-restricted units, and that there will be few of them.

In related news, it appears that State Senate candidate Loni Hancock (former “progressive” Mayor of Berkeley, current Assemblymember, wife of Tom “I stole the newspaper” Bates) is carrying some significant legislation to further placate NIMBYs who love affordable housing in theory. According to the Planet (I couldn’t find this bill), Hancock has introduced a bill that would exempt cities with IZ from the statewide Density Bonus without forcing them to create their own bonuses, thereby encouraging cities to pass the sort of IZ ordinances a recent pro-IZ study found to be the least effective: mandatory, unfunded policies without planning concessions. Politicians like Loni Hancock, Tom Bates and, in Oakland, Jane Brunner and Nancy Nadel advance a damaging anti-growth agenda under the auspices of providing more affordable housing, and inevitably their targets are transit corridors and other places that make growth smart. BRT proponents and other environmentalists are wise to connect the dots.

Measure N: Yes, Yes, Yes! Oakland’s libraries are hopelessly run-down and out-dated, especially our main library. In our current facilities, we cannot adequately support the needs of our community. Our libraries provide invaluable services for immigrants, children, teens, seniors, and many other residents of Oakland. The new main at Kaiser is a wonderful example of adaptive re-use, and I desperately look forward to having a building where there will be adequate network support to public internet access, and well as finally having browseable stacks! Easier transit accessibility, free public parking, and the re-opening of the Calvin Simmons Theater for public use make this a winner for everyone. For more information, visit www.oaklandlibraries.com

District 2 City Council: Pat Kernighan. Pat has demonstrated her devotion to District 2 and ability to deliver time and time again. Her opponent opposes downtown revitalization, public transportation, and thinks we spend too much money on police. For more reasons to vote against hypocrite Aimee Allison, just browse through Oakland Native’s post about her here. For some District 2 neighborhood activists perspectives on why Pat is the right choice, look here, here, here, and here.

City Auditor: Courtney Ruby. Roland Smith has been a terrible city auditor, from his failure to actually do anything for the city to his inability to work with women and Asians. The man has to go.

Measure O: No! We believe that the primary process is healthy! Instant runoff voting in San Francisco has simply led to confusing and cluttered races with 10 or more people running for many positions. In such a race, it is difficult for voters to wade through the all the noise enough to have a clear understanding of the issues facing their district! Furthermore, after years of intensive voter education, IRV advocates’ own polls show that 13% of voters still don’t understand the system. Completely unnacceptable! We find the argument that it will save money terribly disturbing – do the people of Oakland really think the democratic process isn’t worth $400,000? If so, how depressing.

1A: No. Budgeting at the ballot box is responsible for many of our state’s financial problems to begin with. Enough!
1B: No. Too much much spent on roads compared to transit, and what money would go to transit will end up being squandered on wasteful projects like BART to San Jose or the Central Subway rather than actually improving day to day service of cost-effective and flexible systems that people actually use, like AC Transit.
1C: Yes. This provides funding for emergency shelters, down-payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, grants for environmental remediation to encourage infill development in urban areas, grants to encourage high-density, transit-oriented development, park funding. I sort of wanted to do a blanket no all across the board, but this one just hits too many of my pet causes. And places like Oakland will benefit the most from it. Yeah for 1C!
1D: No. This bond measure is not designed to meet long-term or one-time needs. It is just a way for the Legislature to alleviate their guilt for not properly funding schools to begin with. As with 1B, these are continuing needs that need permanent dedicated revenue, not a bond. A responsible Legislature and Governor would raise MY taxes to pay for these needs, not my children’s.
1E: Yes. Because who votes against flood control?

Part 2

The signature-submitted iniatives on this year’s ballot are a pointed example of what’s wrong with the entire initiative process. Special interests and wealthy individuals can literally buy their way onto the ballot, either to impose taxes for their pet projects (Props 86 and 87) or to enact radical, wide-ranging measures that would disrupt the entire policy-making process (Props 89 and 90). We urge a blanket ‘no’ vote on every single one. In detail, however, here are their problems.

Prop 83: This punitive measure is a transparent attempt by Republicans to change the conversation from corruption to crime. The state already passed a more moderate version of this law. There are possible constitutional problems with its blanket ban on sex offenders living in urban areas – would the state have the right to evict people from their homes? And GPS monitoring for life? O.M.G. Also, it is incredibly unfair to dump sex offenders in rural California.

Prop 84: This is a typical special-interest buyout of the iniative process. It gives grants to environmental organizations; those organizations, of course, are backing it. Just say no to this money-grab! If you care about flood control, vote for 1E.

Prop 85: Not only was this exact same proposition rejected in the special election, but it’s just wrong to impose age limits on constitutional rights. This proposition is anti-choice, antifeminist and is age discrimination in its purest form.

Prop 86: The link between smoking and hospitals is tenuous at best. The money from this gigantic tax would go to for-profit hospitals, not smoking prevention programs. After the utility tax failed in 2004, the greedy hospitals are back, trying to raise and spend money themselves, corrupting the process. They even added in an exemption from state anti-trust oversight! Additionally, the tax is so high that it will definitely encourage cigarette smuggling.

Prop 87: This has to be one of the mostly poorly-written intiatives ever to face the voters. The tax scheme does not specify whether the tax applies on the margin or not, which is a huge variable in how it will be collected. Oil companies will be able to deduct the tax from their income, and so the state will lose revenue from income tax. Furthermore, the proposition requires the state to spend money on alternative energy research even if the tax does not collect its projected amount, saddling us with yet another spending mandate. Finally, the proposition is a grab-bag of money for “research,” and the campaign is being funded by those who will receive its grants. Again, corruption.

Prop 88: One of the major problems with local taxes, besides the requirement of a 2/3rds supermajority vote, is their often regressive nature. This pointless parcel tax is not only severely regressive but unncessary, and would encourage voters in the future to reject local parcel taxes.

Prop 89: This is unfair, one-sided, and clearly unconstitutional. PACs and businesses would face limits that wealthy individuals and unions do not. Fringe candidates will have access to public funds for their extremist campaigns, souring the political debate. Lastly, the fact that it’s funded by a corporate income tax hike simply adds to its unfairness while providing no rational link between the funding source and the purpose of the proposition. This is backed by greedy public-sector unions looking to permanently cement their hold on the state’s lawmakers.

Prop 90: We generally oppose land-use regulations that limit the uses of property to please NIMBYs, but this goes way too far. The consequences of this measure are far-reaching and very threatening to local government finances. A similar law has been an utter disaster in Oregon.