The revised proposal, submitted by Councilmember Darryl Moore after public backlash against his original recommendation, dropped the motion to close the registry and instead suggested celebrating the registry’s 22-year anniversary by declaring Oct. 11 Marriage Equality Day.

The City Council established the Berkeley Domestic Partnership Registry in 1991 as a means of helping same-sex couples and opposite-sex unmarried couples obtain the same benefits as married couples.

Councilmember Kriss Worthington praised the adoption of the revised proposal, calling the original “one of the most grotesque, offensive and discriminating policies I have seen.”

The initial recommendation aimed to close the registry as a celebration of same-sex marriage becoming legal earlier this year. Moore, who drafted the proposal, wrote that the registry “only functions as a matter of ceremony” because same-sex marriages are recognized by the state.

But Worthington argued that the registry remains a necessity because both homosexual and heterosexual couples still use it if they choose not to marry. According to Worthington, California law allows homosexual couples to enter a domestic partnership at any legal age but forbids it for opposite-sex couples unless one partner is older than 62.

“If you’re gay, you can be a domestic partner at any age, but if you’re straight, you have to be over 62?” Worthington said. “This is not marriage equality.”

Worthington said the proposal to close the registry, which allows both heterosexual and homosexual couples to obtain a domestic partnership regardless of age, “offended me deeply.”

“In our celebration of a victory for the rights of the gay community, we can’t take away the rights of the straight community,” Worthington said

Other citizens and council members pointed to the popular use of the registry as a reason it should stay open. More than 1,000 couples have used the registry since its creation, including 15 after the legalization of same-sex marriage, according to Councilmember Jesse Arreguin.

“The registry is not just symbolic,” Arreguin said. “It’s important because it provides couples a variety of legal rights and protections, including medical insurance coverage and protection from eviction.”

Berkeley resident Steve Freedkin and his domestic partner are not a same-sex couple but rely on the legal benefits of the registry. Unwilling to get married while “friends in other states can’t,” Freedkin said the registry prevented his landlord from evicting his partner, a protection that would disappear if the registry were closed.

While Freedkin said he believed the proposal was motivated by good intentions, he said Moore didn’t seem “to have all the information” when proposing it.

To commemorate Marriage Equality Day, Moore and Worthington plan to officiate marriages at Old City Hall between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m.

“We’re going to have the party,” Worthington said. “We’re going to have the party without taking away anyone’s rights.”

Contact Savannah Luschei at sluschei@dailycal.org.

The post Berkeley City Council dismisses proposal to close city’s domestic partnership registry appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Police responded to reports that the man was stabbing himself in an attempt to commit suicide. While the attempt was unsuccessful, the man sustained injuries that police said could have been prevented had they been equipped with tasers.

This is not the first time the association, a labor organization that represents officers and sergeants, has advocated allowing Berkeley police to carry tasers. Earlier this spring, they conducted a survey, which showed that more than 80 percent of Berkeley residents supported taser use by police.

“None of us want to see a mentally ill person suffering,” said the association’s president, Sgt. Chris Stines. “A taser is not pleasant but has an extremely low likelihood of causing injury or death.”

Currently, the city of Berkeley does not allow its police force to carry tasers. Police instead are armed with batons, firearms and pepper spray, Stines said.

The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, whose officers are equipped with tasers, has said tools are effective as a nonlethal use of force in dangerous situations.

While community members generally support the use of the devices, Berkeley Copwatch, a local organization that seeks to hold city police accountable, has been vocal about its opposition to the idea.

“There is a tendency to use tasers as a form of punishment to people,” said Copwatch volunteer Russell Bates. “Police officers are too quick on the draw to use tasers.”

In its opposition, Berkeley Copwatch cites an Amnesty International report showing that between 2001 and 2012, there were more than 500 taser-related deaths in the United States, at least 92 of which were in California.

Bates said that communication as well as mental-health teams from the community would be far more successful in resolving delicate situations that could otherwise result in injury or death. The probability of death becomes higher if the victim is intoxicated, is on drugs or has pre-existing cardiac conditions, he said.

When the Berkeley Police Association’s survey was sent out in the spring, Berkeley City Councilmember Max Anderson expressed opposition to the use of tasers in Berkeley on these same grounds.

Any change to the police department’s taser policy would need to come before the City Council and be voted upon — although no item has yet been introduced.

Councilmembers Gordon Wozniak and Darryl Moore said they are moderately in favor of equipping police with tasers, although they stressed the need for strict regulations and a lengthy discussion before any policy change is implemented.

“I’d rather be tased than shot,” Moore said. “There needs to be very clear policy on engagement of force.”

Contact Giacomo Toginini at gtognini@dailycal.org.

The post Berkeley Police Association renews push to allow officers to carry tasers appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Pol Rebaque/File

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision allowing same-sex marriage in California, Berkeley City Council will consider closing the city’s Domestic Partnership Registry at its Oct. 1 meeting.

Darryl Moore, the council member proposing the closure, said the city’s registry is no longer needed because the services it offers can be provided through other avenues, such as going to the Office of the County Clerk in Oakland or mailing the registration to the secretary of state’s office in Sacramento.

The proposal comes in response to the Supreme Court’s June decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which the court ruled 5-4 to effectively nullify Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot initiative that added language to the state constitution defining marriage as valid only between a man and a woman.

In 1984, Berkeley City Council was the first city council to grant domestic partnership benefits to its employees. The city in 1991 established the Domestic Partnership Registry, which allowed the city to recognize domestic partnerships.

More than 1,000 domestic partners are registered in Berkeley, according to Councilmember Kriss Worthington. The last time a couple registered for a domestic partnership was Monday, according to the city clerk.

Before submitting the proposal, Moore said he sent it to local leaders, including the Pacific Center for Human Growth, an LGBT community organization, for review.

Worthington and Councilmember Jesse Arreguin, however, believe the community and affected couples should be further consulted before a decision is made.

“Whether they are heterosexual couples or same-sex couples, they may choose domestic partnerships over marriage,” Arreguin said. “We should continue to give them that option.”

According to the city clerk’s office, about 40 to 50 couples have registered for domestic partnerships for each of the past three years. Additionally, about 10 domestic partners per year chose to terminate their licenses.

“If people are using it and people want it, I don’t see why we would go out of our way to close it,” said Caitlin Quinn, an ASUC senator endorsed by groups in the campus queer community.

Other community members see a potential need to terminate Berkeley’s domestic registry. City policy on domestic partnerships does not require other employers, businesses or government agencies to recognize Berkeley’s domestic partnerships, according to the city’s website.

“(Closing the registry) could eliminate potential conflict between the city’s registry and the state of California’s marriage laws for same-sex couples,” said Ed Ness, co-chair of the Oakland/East Bay chapter of Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

The council will also consider establishing Oct. 11, the registry’s 22nd anniversary, as Marriage Equality Day in Berkeley as part of the proposal.

Contact Gladys Rosario and Michelaina Johnson at newsdesk@dailycal.org

The post Berkeley City Council to consider eliminating domestic partnership registry appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Rashad Sisemore/File

Local marijuana advocates are hopeful that cannabis-related regulation will become less stringent in the wake of a federal government memo released last week.

After the Obama administration’s announcement Thursday that it would reduce federal intervention in state regulation of the marijuana industry, cannabis supporters believe medical dispensaries may face fewer punitive measures from the federal government and that recreational marijuana eventually could be legalized.

“(The memo) is a welcome turnaround,” said Councilmember Kriss Worthington. “Recognizing city and state laws and stopping the criminalization (of marijuana sale) is super important.”

Thursday’s memo is the federal government’s first announcement regarding marijuana regulation since voters in Colorado and Washington legalized personal use in 2012.

“I’m very hopeful that lives are going to be saved and people are no longer going to be threatened with jail time for their choice in medicine,” said Lanette Davies, director of Crusaders for Patients’ Rights, an advocacy group for medical marijuana patients.

City Councilmembers Worthington and Darryl Moore, who support medical marijuana, said they are optimistic about the impact the memo will have on Berkeley Patients Group and Harborside Health Center, two local cannabis dispensaries fighting federal government lawsuits.

The announcement may also lead to Berkeley City Council’s approval of a fourth registered dispensary, Moore said.

Given that no federal laws have been changed, however, immediate implications of the memo are uncertain, said Kris Hermes, media specialist for Americans for Safe Access, a cannabis-advocacy group. On Friday, the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District told the East Bay Express that it “(does) not expect a significant change” in the way it handles marijuana-related cases.

According to David Goldman, a local spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access, California cannabis-regulation laws must be stricter and more clearly defined for federal government intervention to decrease.

“(People) don’t understand the science of medical marijuana — that people need it,” Goldman said. “They think it’s a sham.”

Earlier this year, the California Legislature attempted to pass two bills that would have further regulated cannabis sale and use. In light of Thursday’s memo, the Legislature may resurrect either of these failed bills, Hermes said.

In 2010, California voters failed to pass Proposition 19, which would have allowed people 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. The federal government’s memo could pave the way for a new initiative to get passed, said Allen St. Pierre, executive director at NORML, a recreational-marijuana advocacy group that supported the proposition.

“2016 is the year to watch for with these initiatives,” St. Pierre said. “Marijuana will be as much talked about on the ballot as the presidential candidates.”

Claire Chiara covers research and ideas. Contact her at cchiara@dailycal.org.

The post Local marijuana advocates optimistic after White House announcement appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The first case, United States v. Windsor, overruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act, while the second case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruled on California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8. The decision for the DOMA case, which allowed same-sex couples to receive federal marriage benefits, was decided 5-4, with the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Kennedy, a swing voter in recent years, was supported by the four liberal-leaning justices of the court. They ruled in the decision that the statute violated the Fifth Amendment.

In the Prop. 8 case, the Supreme Court, in effect, legalized same-sex marriage in California on procedural grounds, saying Prop. 8 proponents had no legal standing to appeal the case.

Jason Fauss, an ally of the LGBTQ community and a student participating in UC Berkeley’s Cal in the Capital program, was able to witness the decision announced at the U.S. Supreme Court building.

“It was nerve-wracking being in the courtroom waiting to hear the decision,” Fauss said.

As soon as DOMA was announced as overruled, Fauss said that there was an audible roar outside the courtroom doors.

Celebrations were not limited to the capital. LavenderCal, UC Berkeley’s network for LGBTQ faculty members, held a celebration on the steps of Sproul Hall at about noon. The city of Berkeley also held a celebration Wednesday evening on the steps of Old City Hall. The gathering was small but attracted passionate community members who shared their thoughts and personal stories.

At the celebration, California state Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, fought back tears as she shared a text message from her lesbian daughter: “Mom, we can get married at home. Happy tears when I read the headline.”

Ann Riley, a Berkeley resident and former UC Berkeley student, was also at the event and appreciated both the Prop. 8 and DOMA rulings.

“I plan to get married in 25 days,” Riley said.

Joi Soley, a communications director of Pacific School of Religion, a seminary in Berkeley, said that the school had an extremely positive reaction to the decisions. According to Soley, the school is extremely tolerant of people of all sexual orientations.

Many community members, however, continued to look toward the future, noting that the Prop. 8 ruling only affected same-sex marriage in California. Despite the procedural nature of the decision in the Prop. 8 case, Berkeley City Councilmember Kriss Worthington saw the decision as a sign of a changing social landscape.

“Although the decision was based on a technical standing, it is clear that the momentum is building astronomically,” he said.

ASUC Executive Vice President Nolan Pack, who identifies as queer, is an LGBTQ activist and was excited for the overall outcome of both decisions. However, he said he is concerned for other states that are still struggling to obtain marriage equality.

“If DOMA is a one and Prop. 8 is another one, we are at a 1.5 out of two right now,” Pack said.

Although the decisions are a victory for the LGBTQ community in California, more than 30 states still prohibit gay marriage, a concern to many members of the Berkeley community.

At the city’s celebration, Councilmember Darryl Moore, who is gay, furthered Pack’s sentiments.

“Let’s go out and celebrate today,” Moore said. “But remember, we have work still to do.”

Contact Saachi Makkar smakkar@dailycal.org.

The post Berkeley locals celebrate Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage across city appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Bowen Xiao/File

Berkeley City Council postponed discussion on a medical marijuana ordinance at its council meeting last week, delaying the addition of a fourth dispensary indefinitely.

The ordinance aims to clarify the legal definition of both medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives to improve the city’s ability to regulate cannabis suppliers. At the meeting, council members delayed discussion until October.

The proposal, entitled “Medical Cannabis Ordinance Revisions and Dispensary Selection Process,” includes amendments to the Berkeley Municipal Code and contains a new selection process that would govern how the city would choose additional medical marijuana dispensaries. The proposal also recommends that the city increase the number of dispensaries allowed from four to six to improve medical patients’ access to medical marijuana.

Rick Pfrommer, chairperson of the Medical Cannabis Commission, has spent the last two years modeling Berkeley’s medical marijuana policy after those of Oakland and San Francisco. Now that the proposal has been postponed, he says he is worried about the city’s inability to add a new dispensary and even regulate pre-existing collectives and dispensaries.

“You have a situation in Berkeley where all the dispensaries came around before rules were established,” Pfrommer said. “It’s become important (to distinguish them) in Berkeley, because collectives were operating as de facto dispensaries and not just incidental to residential use as specified in the law.”

According to Medical Cannabis Commission member Charles Pappas, the current definitions of dispensaries and collectives are vague. He said that currently, dispensaries are defined as being located in nonresidential areas only, while collectives are in residential areas and can only utilize a certain quota of a home’s living space.

By clarifying the laws regarding dispensaries and collectives, legality issues with institutions such as those with Greenleaf Wellness Group could be eliminated, according to Councilmember Jesse Arreguin. Greenleaf Wellness Group was declared a public nuisance on June 4.

“How many more Greenleafs will be allowed before we take action?” Arreguin said. “(The decision to postpone discussion on the proposal) prevents us from being able to prevent that, because the proposal tightens up the law.”

At the meeting last week, the council also agreed to file a lawsuit against the federal government in support of Berkeley Patients Group, the city’s oldest and largest medical marijuana dispensary. BPG is currently facing a lawsuit from the U.S. attorney’s office, which is ordering a forfeiture of BPG’s property for allegedly violating federal law.

“The difference between Greenleaf and Berkeley Patients Group is that Berkeley Patients Group is a legally functioning dispensary,”  Arreguin said. “We have had very few, if any, problems with them. Greenleaf is the opposite.”

Contact Elise Aliotti at ealiotti@dailycal.org.

The post Berkeley City Council delays discussion on expanding number of cannabis dispensaries appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Andrew Kuo/Senior Staff

Only a few blocks away from the Occupy the Farm demonstrations, a less contentious community farm is expanding in Berkeley.

Urban Adamah, a farm influenced by Jewish tradition, will be moving from its temporary place on Parker Street to a permanent home on Sixth Street, where it will continue to provide educational opportunities and fresh produce for the Berkeley community.

The farm is currently in negotiations to purchase a 2.2-acre lot on Sixth Street for $2.5 million. The organization has raised $1.3 million through donations as of Friday and will have to raise the remaining funds and hold land inspections by August to finalize the purchase.

Founded in 2010 by Adam Berman, Urban Adamah is a nonprofit educational farm and community center that aims to serve the Berkeley community. By integrating Jewish customs with mindfulness and social action, the organization seeks to spread values such as kindness, justice and love through sustainable agriculture.

“This is a project that is designed to open people’s hearts and build connections to the earth and to the bounty,” Berman said.

Urban Adamah holds summer camps, after-school programs and programs for local churches and synagogues. It also sponsors a three-month residential fellowship program for young adults and holds a free food market every Wednesday in partnership with local social services and food banks.

Berman and the members of the Urban Adamah community were attracted to the Sixth Street property for its location, size and proximity to the Codornices Creek. By moving to the lot on Sixth Street, Urban Adamah will be able to produce four times the amount of food that it currently grows and hold twice the number of education programs for the community, according to Berman.

“I think getting involved in sustainable agriculture is a meaningful enterprise on multiple levels,” Berman said. “It connects people to their food and inspires them to eat more healthily.”

Members of the Berkeley community have also expressed excitement about Urban Adamah’s efforts.

“Urban Adamah is an amazing organization,” said Councilmember Darryl Moore, whose district includes the current location of the farm. “They have been able to convert a vacant field in my district into an amazing urban garden … I’m 100 percent excited about their new space.”

Councilmember Linda Maio said she is pleased to have Urban Adamah move into her district because there are no other nonprofits in Berkeley like it that provide the community with such open agricultural space.

“There’s nothing better than to have an urban garden right next to (Codornices) Creek instead of a cement building,” Maio said.

Berman said he believes that Urban Adamah has created a strong community bond between the various types of people in Berkeley. Through food, he says he hopes that people can build connections with others as well as with the earth.

Contact Jennie Yoon at jyoon@dailycal.org.

The post Local nonprofit farm to move efforts to a permanent location appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Jan Flatley-Feldman/File

A local medical cannabis business will be moving its operations out of Berkeley after the City Council unanimously voted Tuesday to declare it a public nuisance.

As part of the declaration, the city ordered Perfect Plants Patient’s Group — also known as 3PG — to shut down due to complaints from community members and multiple violations of the Berkeley Municipal Code, including operating in a commercial zone and being located within 600 feet of Longfellow Middle School.

“I’m really disappointed that it took so long for the issue to be resolved,” said Councilmember Darryl Moore. “It was an illegal operation from the very beginning, but it took 14 months, and that is just way too long.”

3PG has been running its business for the past 14 months from its location at 2840-B Sacramento St. Members of the Sacramento Street Improvement Association, a group of concerned citizens, began organizing support to remove the cannabis business from the neighborhood in November 2011.

The association’s campaign in opposition to 3PG was inspired by neighbors who were concerned with street drug sales and crime that was associated with the business, said Ryan Kerian, chief officer of the association.

“Basically, we feel that any illegal activity is a magnet that attracts more crime,” Kerian said. “We want to do everything we can do to protect the neighborhood. It is a good neighborhood with good people, and we feel that 3PG operating illegally has the potential to attract additional illegal activities.”

Managing member of 3PG Eric Thomas repeatedly denied the accusation that crimes committed in the area were directly associated with the business and said his main qualms were regarding the city’s convoluted zoning definitions related to medical cannabis.

“What it boils down to is a wording of definitions that needs to be cleared up,” Thomas said. “Some of the definitions don’t clearly cover all of the needs for the cannabis collectives … So it makes it hard for somebody to try to be professional.”

3PG has spent around $10,000 in paying off fines to the city and in legal fees for lawyers, according to Thomas. If he were to ever consider opening another collective in Berkeley, Thomas said current city laws would need to be rewritten first.

Thomas owns another collective in Vallejo to which he is currently referring customers after closing his Berkeley location.
“We don’t know how to move forward,” Thomas said. “The definitions in place are very cloudy.”

Kerian said he will be skeptical of the enforcement of the city’s proclamation until 3PG’s property is entirely moved out of the building, as the city has not been strict in enforcing 3PG’s closure in the past.

“The sign is still up, the office is still occupied,” Kerian said. “We won’t believe they’re gone until they’re gone.”

Contact Gladys Rosario at grosario@dailycal.org.

The post City orders medical cannabis business to shut down appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Kore Chan/Staff

Berkeley City Council voted unanimously for city staff to draft a resolution finding a local medical cannabis collective a public nuisance after a public hearing Tuesday night.

The issue over whether the collective, Perfect Plants Patient’s Group, is in violation of Berkeley zoning codes has developed into a saga that has lasted more than a year and has polarized not only many members of the Berkeley community on Sacramento Street but also the council members themselves. While the council members have taken steps to move toward the official declaration of the group, also known as 3PG, the public hearing revealed tensions within the community of Sacramento Street.

According to city Code Enforcement Officer Gregory Daniels, 3PG — which has been operating at its 2840-B Sacramento St. location since September 2011 — can be found in violation of up to four cannabis and zoning ordinances, one of which prohibits the group from operating within 600 feet of Longfellow Middle School.

Although Eric Thomas, the managing member of 3PG, contends that a surveyor licensed by the state measured his operation as 619 feet away from Longfellow — the city has assessed the distance at 546 feet — the City Council can still find 3PG in violation of operating as a cannabis collective in a commercial zone, as a cannabis dispensary operating without a license or for not operating as a retail clothing establishment despite being zoned for that purpose.

“The allegations of the neighbors seem out of character,” said Terri Carver, a medical cannabis patient at 3PG. “Everyone who works there is respectful.”
The main concern of 3PG’s proponents iterated throughout the night was providing safe access to medical cannabis for its approximately 4,000 members — of which 200 to 300 are active.

However, a few supporters, including Thomas and co-founder of 40 Acres Medical Marijuana Growers’ Collective Chris Smith, argued that criticisms of 3PG are a result of the “gentrification” of the surrounding neighborhood, a sentiment at least in part echoed by Councilmember Max Anderson.

“I would caution people, though, to not just summarily dismiss concerns of the community about a lot of Caucasian people lining up on one side and African Americans on the other,” Anderson said.

That topic led to a discussion between Councilmembers Anderson and Darryl Moore as the issue turned from one of zoning code to race and divisions between those who have lived in the area for decades and more recent residents.

“If you lived in Berkeley for one day, you are a resident of this community, and your voice should be counted,” Moore said. “The fact that you’re white should not make a difference.”

Yet, regardless of any tensions or fears over the continued health of the city’s medical marijuana industry, many residents and the entire City Council acknowledged that there are laws that must be upheld.

“Right now, let’s focus on the fact that 3PG and the building’s owner have been under violation of Berkeley law for over a year, and you guys let them get away with it,” said Zach Stauffer, a resident living near 3PG, to the council. “The time has come for you to act and find this place a nuisance and move immediately to close it down and ensure that it never reopens.”

In the end, the City Council unanimously voted to continue the issue to its Nov. 27 meeting, where it will vote on whether to declare 3PG a public nuisance, with several council members echoing sentiments that the city may need to take a second look at local regulation of medical marijuana.

“This is an illegal supercollective acting as a dispensary without a license,” said Councilmember Gordon Wozniak. “We need to take a look at the medical marijuana laws.”

Contact Megan Messerly at mmesserly@dailycal.org.

The post Berkeley City Council hears testimony regarding South Berkeley medical marijuana operation appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Tony Zhou/Staff

In the aftermath of the Berkeley City Council election, candidate Denisha DeLane did not wake up feeling angry or upset over her loss.

DeLane lost the race by a significant percentage, receiving a little less than half the number of votes received by her opponent, incumbent Councilmember Darryl Moore. But like many losing candidates, she felt encouraged that voters chose to support her stance on many policy measures.

“I have this feeling that we still won,” DeLane said Wednesday.

Similarly, mayoral candidate and current Councilmember Kriss Worthington said he was pleased to see that many voters opposed some of the same measures he had spent much of his campaign advocating against.

“Voters said they agreed with me on the policy but rejected me on the ballot,” Worthington said.

Mayoral candidate Jacquelyn McCormick, who finished third, said that even when voters support newcomers with policy ideas, it is still a challenge to overcome the incumbency advantage.

“I think that it’s really hard to beat an incumbent that’s well-funded and part of a machine,” McCormick said. “You have to create a machine that’s behind yourself.”

Former mayor Shirley Dean, who served two terms prior to current incumbent Mayor Tom Bates, said she was “surprised and puzzled” at the overwhelming support for incumbents. Fresh ideas are hard to come by in a City Council with a history of long tenure, she said.

“The election results don’t connect with what I was hearing from people, which was a readiness to change — that there needed to be fresh ideas in the council,” she said.

Because the council currently has no set term limits for seat positions, incumbents are allowed to run for as many terms as they wish. Tuesday marked the fourth re-election of Bates, who is now serving in his 10th year as mayor.

Bates stood as the lone mayoral candidate who supported controversial ballot Measure S — also known as the sit-lie measure — and Measure T, which would have allowed rezoning in West Berkeley. For this, Bates constantly weathered criticism from his opponents.

Despite the mayor’s dividing stance on those issues, Worthington cited the strength of Bates’ political image as what propelled his campaign.

“People remember what he used to be, and they have fond memories of Tom Bates of 10 years ago, and they don’t want to ditch him,” Worthington said.

Bates, however, said he is happy to be working on a good team and sees the results as an indication of public support for the progress the council has been making under his leadership.

“We’ve got work to do, and we’ve got to bring people along whether they win or lose,” he said.

But for the losing candidates, political change continues even after the election.

“My hope — especially for the incumbents — is there’s still a group of people that still need constituents, whether they voted for them or not,” DeLane said.

Contact Shirin Ghaffary at sghaffary@dailycal.org.

The post Despite incumbent victories, challengers still upbeat appeared first on The Daily Californian.