A complaint was filed on May 2 through the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Nahla Droubi, the landlord of the property that houses the dispensary. The lawsuit threatens to seize the property for allegedly violating federal law, which prohibits operating a marijuana dispensary.

Berkeley City Council members and representatives from Berkeley Patients Group held a press conference Wednesday afternoon in front of the Old City Hall expressing their opposition to the lawsuit.

“There is no legitimate reason to target Berkeley Patients Group,” said Sean Luse, chief operations officer at BPG. “They’re in compliance with state law. The U.S. attorney general … has chosen to hurt our patients by diverting attention from the real issues.”

Berkeley Patients Group also came into opposition with the federal government in February 2012, when it received letters from the U.S. attorney’s office for violating a federal law banning dispensaries from being located within 1,000 feet of a school. Even though California law dictates that the distance only has to be 600 feet, the dispensary voluntarily closed down and reopened at a new location in December a few blocks away.

According to the complaint, the U.S. attorney began sending Droubi letters again in November 2012 before the new location opened, warning that the new location would be in violation of the same federal law by being within 1,000 feet of two preschools. A second letter sent in February noted that the group could face criminal and civil penalties if operation continued.

Luse said that the federal government should focus its attention on other crime problems in the city, like illegal drug and gun trafficking. He also said that they plan to fight the lawsuit.

“We look forward to having our day in court and believe we will ultimately prevail,” Luse said.

City Councilmembers Darryl Moore, Kriss Worthington, Laurie Capitelli and Jesse Arreguin voiced their backing of Berkeley Patients Group at the press conference. Mayor Tom Bates also showed his support for the dispensary.

“I’m very, very disappointed that this has happened, and we’ll do anything we can to make sure they get back into business,” Bates said.

Councilmember Kriss Worthington said that the federal government was overstepping its boundaries, referencing the recent California Supreme Court ruling on City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center. In the ruling, the court recognized the legality of medical cannabis dispensaries but allowed that local governments may ban dispensaries despite state law.

“Being a U.S. attorney doesn’t give you the right to change state law or city law,” Worthington said. “It’s so absurd. It’s a waste of time, and it’s threatening patient care.”

In the meantime, the dispensary will remain open, according to Henry Wykowski, attorney for Berkeley Patients Group.

“The only people that would benefit from the closing of Berkeley Patients Group are the gangs and cartels,” Wykowski said. “This action will cause them to prey on the patients who now have a clean, safe place to get their medicine.”

The federal government filed a similar lawsuit against a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland last July. The city of Oakland filed a lawsuit in response, claiming that the federal government had overstepped its jurisdiction. A federal judge later dismissed the lawsuit, saying that only the dispensary and its landlords could contest the government’s seizure of property.

Wykowski said that they intend to file a claim in response to the lawsuit and will also present their case in court.

Contact Tara Hurley at thurley@dailycal.org.

The post Berkeley marijuana dispensary threatened by federal government appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Why would we want such a district to begin with? ASUC Redistricting Director Noah Efron said in an email, “If we have a district whose population is 90 percent student, any council member who has to run in election after election in such a district will be forced to be accountable to student issues.”

At face value, that sounds like something everyone can get on board with. Given the fact that students comprise a large portion of the city’s population, why wouldn’t we want more representation of student issues?

There are some problems to be contended with. Councilmember Laurie Capitelli, who supports the student district, questioned the prominence of student issues. He pointed out to me in an email that, “To some degree (student) issues are not completely known by the Council or the community. There has not been a venue for students to articulate their concerns.”

I don’t want to get into a debate over what is or is not a “student issue” or why the Berkeley community isn’t aware of them. Let’s say we’re able to clearly define them for Capitelli and the council. Even then, would one council member attuned to these issues be enough?

Philippe Marchand, the former assembly affairs vice president of the Graduate Assembly, stated in a comment on a Daily Cal article that “there has been very little discussion on how concentrating students in a single district would affect the overall support for students if none of the other council members have to really care about the student vote.”

There’s a reason that The Three Musketeers are never able to trump The Clique. It’s because there are only three of them. It’s cruel arithmetic at work.

Say an undergrad or grad student runs in the next election cycle and is able to oust Kriss Worthington. Will that solitary figure, working tirelessly to bring student issues to the forefront, be able to enact or solidify change without the support of the others? If he/she’s working alone, that’s a no. Cruel arithmetic.

I asked Efron what he thought about the idea that concentrating the student demographic into a single district could be counterproductive toward the end goal of increasing student representation. Efron said that when the old map was drawn in 1986, students were purposely split up to dilute the student voice. He said, “To suggest that having students in multiple districts means more councilmembers represent them is incorrect … (it) means that it’s not politically important for ANYONE to listen to students.”

Current ASUC External Affairs Vice President Shahryar Abbasi backs him up, telling me in an email that “having someone on council who walks and talks with students everyday will be far more significant vs. having scattered representation who are not solely focused on our interest.”

Not all students are united on this front. CalSERVE’s EAVP candidate, Spencer Pritchard, said in an email, “Overall … a student district does not tackle the problem of student under-representation in city affairs … The idea of a single student district does not go far enough. We need to be advocating for further representation for all of city government.”

One thing they can agree on is that the council hasn’t done enough for student matters. While all of the council members I interviewed last week expressed their support for students, Efron, Pritchard and Student Action EAVP candidate Safeena Mecklai believe the council hasn’t given student issues their due. “We’ve seen with the current city council that when students are divided, their voices are not heard and councilmembers are not responsive to their needs,” Mecklai said in an email. “One lone councilmember cannot pass something on the council, but it will allow us to raise our voices … That’s a huge step.”

Pause. That was a lot of quotes and perspectives I gave you just now. I’m sure there are many more I’m missing as well. Chew on  ’em, digest ’em and if after all this you’re concerned, show up when the redistricting maps are presented and have your say.

As for my opinion? I think one is a lonely number. I think the math is stacked against us. Then again, I’m not the one who needs to be convinced.

At the end of the day, it comes back to the core nine on the council. Don’t get tired of these rambunctious people — they’ll decide whether we get a student supermajority district or not.

Get loud. ’Cause the ball’s in their court now.

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post District 7 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The first faction consists of Max Anderson, Jesse Arreguin and Kriss Worthington. They are referred to as the “WAA” coalition, but I like to call them “The Three Musketeers” because they’re the more outspokenly progressive members of the council and are known for fighting for the “causes of the people.”

The other five are “The Clique.”

Tommy B. gets to be ASB President, Linda Maio is Everyone’s Best Friend Forever, Laurie Capitelli is the Sarcastic Kid on the Debate Team, Gordon Wozniak the Nerd, Darryl Moore the Kid Who Never Talks and Susan Wengraf the Dozer.

It’s the Breakfast Club, Berkeley style.

The Three Musketeers and The Clique clash on the most controversial of issues, with The Three Musketeers consistently losing out.

However, these two lively factions may not last forever. With the upcoming redistricting process, it’s very possible that district lines may be redrawn in such a way as to favor certain members and disadvantage others.

Rather than try to understand redistricting — a very important process that is now a whole different ballgame for Berkeley due to the passage of Measure R last fall — myself and its potential implications for a “student district,” I hit up a few of our lovely council members.

Arreguin explained in an email that “In an ideal situation, redistricting is a technical process in which legislative district boundaries are drawn to achieve equal population in each district, to protect the principle of one person, one vote.’”

But, of course, we don’t live in an ideal situation that speaks so diplomatically, so there’s sure to be drama.

Clique members Wengraf and Bates both expressed enthusiasm about seeing the new maps that are due to the city clerk on Friday, March 15, while Wozniak chimed in with an email that he believed these efforts to keep “communities of interest together” was an example of “participatory democracy alive and well in Berkeley.” What a PC group of folks we got here.

Bates was especially keen on having the maps “make sense” — “I want boundaries that make sense, lines that make sense.” But what makes a boundary or line sensible? One that pleases a certain side? The Clique certainly sounds genuinely interested in what the public has to propose and probably has the city’s best interests at heart.

Not everyone agrees, though. People’s Princess Worthington noted in an email that, “Even in Berkeley we have had … lines drawn to include specific candidates in a district and block candidates out of a district.” Arreguin backs up his buddy, saying, “Measure R … opens the door for Councilmembers to politicize the redistricting process and draw lines that punish opponents. This particular City Council is partisan and sometimes more petty than professional.“

Guys, this is like Gossip Girl for Berkeley nerds, so pay attention.

When I asked Wengraf and Bates what they thought of the idea that redistricting could be done in a way that would hurt certain council members, Bates said, “I don’t think that’s even possible,” and Wengraf scoffed, “I think that’s a very paranoid approach for redistricting … if you are a strong candidate, I don’t think it’s a problem.”

Can we please pop the popcorn and get this show on the road already?

I know I shouldn’t condone political drama for the sake of my own entertainment, but let’s be real — do we honestly think this is going to end any other way than in bloodshed?

Arreguin added that he hopes the city can have a “grown-up” discussion on this topic. Unless your last name is Solo, hope is pretty much futile.

We can strive as much as we want to make sure redrawn lines are objective, rational and sensible, but at the end of the day, there’s no way politics doesn’t come into this.

If you’ve reached the end of this column and you’re thinking, “Wow, this is gonna be a shitshow,” then I’ve done my job. If you aren’t thinking that, here’s some logic for you:

1) The Three Musketeers (more like two, as Anderson was nowhere to be found) don’t like the implications of redistricting.

2) The Clique does.

3) Put them in a mixer and blend well. You’ll get a dirty martini, shaken not stirred.

Makes sense, right?

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post There will be blood appeared first on The Daily Californian.

This, however, is not the case for the citizenry of Berkeley, which has taken up arms and regularly protested against said sale over the past year. The Downtown Berkeley Post Office is special, you see, for it’s listed in the National Register of Historical Places, and its facade, crafted in 1915, is decorated with Works Progress Administration art. As such, it’s an expensive piece of real estate and costly to maintain.

Berkeley City Council formed a subcommittee last year to address the concerns arising from this proposed sale. As of a meeting held this past Tuesday, Feb. 12, the council stands with the people — it is very much in favor of preserving this historic building if at all possible.

Now, let’s make something clear — the post office isn’t closing altogether. If the sale of the building does go through, the post office will simply be moving to another more affordable location.

So what are some reasons for keeping it going in its current carapace?

Harvey Smith, president of the National New Deal Preservation Association and a staunch supporter of our lovely post office, wrote in an op-ed to the Daily Cal last summer that “The proposed sale of the nearly century-old Downtown Berkeley Main Post Office is yet another close-to-home example of the public surrender to corporate America.”

Wait, what? But actually … what?!

This reminds me of a Berkeley City Council meeting I attended last summer that was focused on Berkeley’s unsuccessful ballot measure that would have banned sitting on commercial sidewalks. Protesters congregated outside to express their dismay over the proposed ban, and to one side stood a group participating in the protests loudly shouting, “An acorn is no more a tree than a corporation is a person! A tutu is no more a ballerina than a corporation is a person!”

These both happen to be true statements, but what do they have to do with anything? Why does the supposed desecration of a public entity somehow have to link back to corporate power in America?

Dear Lord, it’s not as if we’re going to install a WalMart or Starbucks in the post office building. “Don’t give in to corporate entities!” is a great slogan to get the people riled up, but pitting public versus private in this matter is the incorrect way to frame this debate.

Simple facts: The Downtown Berkeley Post Office is suffering financially; the plight of the post office is so bad that it has been placed on the “2012 List of America’s 11 Most Endangered Places.” However, the proposed sale does not arise out of an insidious attempt to privatize public goods but an unfortunate reality brought about by technological shifts in the industry.

Let’s not turn this into an ideological debate where one doesn’t exist.

Another reason for not selling has been the consistent cry that this building is part of Berkeley history and that historical preservation is paramount. As a fellow history nerd, I can sympathize.

But let’s be honest here, folks; this isn’t Monticello, this is a freakin’ post office. It’s like saying, “Oh gee whiz, it’s 1932, but for history’s sake, don’t sell that Pony Express outpost that’s falling apart and not making any money! It’s pretty!”

At the last subcommittee meeting on the topic, Councilmember Jesse Arreguin said, “We paid for it,” in reference to the fact that taxpayer money has allowed for the building’s development and maintenance all these years.

I can understand how you can feel attached to a building because you’ve paid for it. That’s where I stop comprehending, though, because the arguments that are being made to save the building don’t follow logically.

If you love the building because it’s historic, well … the building isn’t going anywhere. It will remain a beautiful facade, regardless of its inhabitants. If you love the U.S. Postal Service because you would have been that person in 1932 using the Pony Express, well … that’s not being eliminated with the sale, only moved.

Why insist on maintaining a costly building/service and paying taxes for it when neither the building nor the service will be significantly tarnished by a sale?

The council’s next subcommittee meeting on the issue will take place next Tuesday, Feb. 26; voting on the issue will occur on March 5. As noted before, the council is fully in support of historic preservation. To which I must ask: To what end?

Or better yet: How often do you use the post office?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post You don’t got mail appeared first on The Daily Californian.

According to the city’s annual crime report, announced by Berkeley Police Department Chief Michael Meehan at the City Council’s special meeting Tuesday, there has been an increase in “part one crimes” throughout the city. Part one crimes include murder, rape, robbery, burglary, larceny and auto theft.

“It’s disturbing that crime is up 11 percent,” said City Councilmember Susan Wengraf. “It’s disturbing that rape is up as high as it is. I’m not sure if the actual rape numbers are up or if more people are just reporting rapes, but I was terrified.”

In 2011 Berkeley had one reported homicide, 20 cases of rape and 3,458 larcenies. In contrast, 2012 saw five homicides, 39 rapes and 4,102 larcenies. Larcenies, which make up a majority of the reported crimes, include petty theft, grand theft and auto burglaries.

Several crimes, however, were below or remained near 2011 levels, according to the report. There were fewer aggravated assaults, burglaries, robberies and arsons in 2012 than in 2011.

Several council members, including Laurie Capitelli and Kriss Worthington, said they were disappointed in the rise in crime for 2012. Both, however, expressed support for the police department, stating that the department has been doing a good job handling the various incidents.

“The police force is working hard and acting successfully in making sure that they’re using their time and resources in an efficient manner,” Capitelli said.

Additionally, Meehan’s report listed several crime prevention and response strategies that the police department implemented in order to reduce certain crimes. These strategies include efforts such as working in conjunction with UCPD to reduce street robberies and address ongoing crimes issues on Southside.

Much like the city, the university has also seen an increase in crime. Part one crimes went up by about 13 percent, according Lt. Eric Tejada, spokesperson for UCPD.

Robberies have increased from 13 cases in 2011 to 20 in 2012, and violent crimes have risen by 1 percent, Tejada said.

Berkeley residents should also be more alert and careful when it comes to property crimes, according to Capitelli and Wengraf.

“People just need to be conscious of their environment and the fact that you don’t want to create a bunch of inviting targets,” Capitelli said. “That’s everything from not walking down the street to your head buried in your smartphone and to keeping your car locked.”

Despite the uptick in crime for 2012, crime rates have declined significantly in the long run.

“In the past 10 years in a row, crime has gone down, and this is the first year that crime has gone up,” Worthington said. “Even with the increase, it’s still lower than two years ago.”

Andy Nguyen is the lead crime reporter. Contact him at anguyen@dailycal.org.

The post 2012 sees rise in Berkeley city crime rates appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The city’s Peace and Justice Commission drafted the letter, addressed to the UC Regents and other entities that cooperate in management and research at the laboratories. The letter cites the 1986 Nuclear Free Berkeley Act, a portion of the Berkeley Municipal Code that prevents the city from contracting with or investing in groups that engage in nuclear weapons work, and asks that the university no longer manage those labs in light of the “nuclear danger to the world.”

Councilmembers Gordon Wozniak and Laurie Capitelli voiced criticism of the letter at Tuesday’s council meeting.

“It was rather ironic that we were asking the university for a favor, and the attitude was, while I’ve got you on the phone, please stop managing the labs, because we have a nuclear-free ordinance,” Capitelli said.

In September and November, the City Council granted two waivers exempting UC Berkeley from the NFBA. The waivers greenlighted funding for the startup incubator Skydeck and enabled the city to store a sizable cache of emergency medical supplies with UC Berkeley.

The NFBA requires that council grant waivers whenever the city enters an agreement with UC Berkeley due to the university’s continuing relationship with Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Peace and Justice Commission administers the NFBA and recommends grants or denials of waivers.

“We asked the City Council from here on out, when a waiver is granted that bears on the university, a letter be sent to the university stating our opposition to their continued management of the labs,” said Peace and Justice Commission Vice Chair George Lippman.

Both Wozniak and Capitelli support focusing efforts on encouraging the federal government to reduce or eliminate weapons stockpiles.

Wozniak previously attempted to have the NFBA’s restrictions on investments and contracts removed. He suggested splitting the city’s boycott of the labs from the university.

“If they want to keep this clause, it should only apply to the national labs, and there should be a blanket exemption to the campuses that don’t do any weapons work,” Wozniak said.

Jasmina Vujic, UC Berkeley professor of nuclear engineering and director of the Berkeley Nuclear Research Center, described the university’s role in the national labs, however, as a moderating influence on the private companies that help manage the labs.

Capitelli also called adjusting the NFBA an issue to be visited sometime in the future. Changing the code would require a ballot measure brought either by the City Council or by a citizens’ initiative.

Nonetheless, the item passed unanimously in the council, despite concerns brought up from various council members that the letter be properly focused.

Gautham Thomas covers city government. Contact him at gthomas@dailycal.org.

The post Berkeley City Council asks university to halt management of Livermore and Los Alamos labs appeared first on The Daily Californian.

At a special meeting Tuesday night, Berkeley City Council discussed long-term fiscal concerns and different strategies for balancing the budget. To close the projected deficits, the city staff recommended a 2 percent general fund reduction across all city departments.

“It’s very sobering news — very tough decisions ahead,” said Councilmember Jesse Arreguin.

For the Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, the 2 percent cuts account for a little more than $100,000 of its $5.3 million budget, according to Peggy Gibbons, deputy director of the department.

“Two percent is certainly going to have an impact on some programs, (but) it’s not a million-dollar cut,” Gibbons said.

However, council members raised concerns regarding the staff’s proposed 2 percent reduction across all departments because it may not adequately address the long-term financial obstacles.

“We can keep shaving 2 percent a year, (but) at some point, we have to take a hard look at evaluating programs,” Councilmember Laurie Capitelli said at the meeting. “It would seem to me that every year we’ve been shaving.”

The $3 million deficit for fiscal year 2014 comes from the difference between a projected revenue of $150.4 million and projected expenses of $153.4 million in the general fund, while the $2.1 million deficit for fiscal year 2015 stems from the projected revenue of $153 million and projected expenses of $155.1, according to the agenda item. The deficit has increased from a recent previous deficit projected at $1.8 million, which the city was able to close last year.

The city faces an additional $3.9 million in structural deficits from special funds, which are funds that account for the financing of public improvements or services, for fiscal year 2014. To address this issue, the staff is currently conducting a comprehensive fiscal review with each department to address the funds.

These long-term fiscal issues have been an ongoing source of concern over the years. According to the fiscal year 2012 and 2013 biennial budget, Berkeley faces nearly $330 million in unfunded liabilities — costs that are not presently due but must be paid in the future — of which pensions account for approximately $205 million.

“I think we need to look at long-term strategies,” said Councilmember Gordon Wozniak. “There are ways … that you don’t see when you look at it year by year.”

According to Budget Manager Teresa Berkeley-Simmons, the city staff will present the biennial budget update focusing on unfunded liabilities on Feb. 19.

Daphne Chen is the lead city government reporter. Contact her at daphnechen@dailycal.org.

The post City projects large deficits for upcoming fiscal years appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Community members filed a total of four complaints in the Nov. 6 election, with two of the four complaints set to be resolved by the city’s Fair Campaign Practices Commission next month. In the last six years, the commission has seen smaller numbers of formal complaints during local elections.

“There was a lot on the ballot this year, so there was … maybe slightly more (complaints) this year,” said Kristy van Herick, the commission’s secretary. “It just depends on how busy the election is.”

Both the complaint against one of the slates running for the Rent Stabilization Board and the complaint against Councilmember Laurie Capitelli’s re-election committee will be discussed at a special meeting on Dec. 13, though the two complaints about Measure T — which narrowly failed in this year’s election and would have allowed expanded development in West Berkeley — have been resolved.

City Planning Commissioner Patti Dacey filed a complaint in October alleging that the Tenants United For Fairness slate used large donations to oppose Berkeley’s Measure U — also known as the Sunshine Ordinance — to release two mailers largely in support of TUFF’s slate of rent board candidates.

“They wrote a lengthy complaint that’s baseless,” said Jay James, a former TUFF slate candidate. “I’ll be waiting to see (what the FCPC will say).”

The complaint filed by former mayor Shirley Dean alleges that the Re-Elect Laurie Capitelli for City Council 2012 Committee violated a state law specifying that an officer of a local agency may not engage in “political activities of any kind while in uniform.” The mailer the committee sent featured a photo of Capitelli with a uniformed police officer. The pictured officer was Capitelli’s son, a police officer in Petaluma.

“The campaign funds used to produce and distribute this misleading, illegal mailer violates campaign spending laws over which (the commission has) jurisdiction,” the complaint states.

However, Capitelli said Dean’s claims are based on violations of state law, which would not be within the purview of the commission.

“I think that her allegations are unfounded,” he said.

The commission is limited to overseeing the Berkeley Election Reform Act and typically does not evaluate the accuracy of the material, van Herick said.

During the 2006 election, the commission investigated three complaints regarding potential campaign violations, but in 2008, the FCPC did not investigate any complaints about violations of the Berkeley Election Reform Act, according to reports submitted by the commission to the City Council.

Similarly, during the city’s 2010 election, no formal complaint was listed, though a potential complaint was brought up, according to the commission’s previous board meeting agenda.

“I think (complaints have) been higher than ever before,” Dean said. “It shows the blatant disregard of the city and state laws.”

Daphne Chen covers city government. Contact her at daphnechen@dailycal.org.

The post 2012 election sees spike in complaints of Berkeley election law violation appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Gray was seen by Soto-Vigil’s wife who went outside to investigate after hearing sounds by the home’s garbage area around 3:30 p.m. There she allegedly saw Capitelli’s aide going through the couple’s recycling and taking photographs.

After being confronted by Soto-Vigil’s wife, Gray allegedly ran back to a car where Councilmember Capitelli was waiting.

Soto-Vigil, who is also an aide to Councilmember and Mayoral Candidate Kriss Worthington, admitted he had the signs of BART Board candidate Rebecca Saltzman, mayoral candidate Jacquelyn McCormick and City Council candidate Dmitri Belser in his recycling because he had found them damaged on the ground nearby.

Capitelli said he and his aide were dropping off campaign materials next door and noticed the signs sticking out of Soto-Vigils recycling and garbage bins and went to investigate. He confirmed that Gray took photographs.

“One of the signs was a Dmitri Belser sign, who is a candidate who (Soto-Vigil) doesn’t support,” Capitelli said. “He told me he took them so he could recycle them. If you look at the picture … they don’t look damaged to me.”

Soto-Vigil said that he found the signs on the ground and did not take them, adding that he supports and works with Saltzman and McCormick.

“I’m an environmentalist. I don’t discriminate,” Soto-Vigil said. “(The signs) were sticking out so I obviously have nothing to hide and if Pam had gone through my trash she would have seen my signs too which were unusable and couldn’t be recycled.”

Capitelli said that sign theft has been a huge problem in this election season.

“Well we are purchased 700 signs and we probably have 250 left. We have seen our signs shredded,” Capitelli said.

Capitelli said he would not be pursuing charges against Soto-Vigil, while Soto-Vigil said he will filling trespassing charges if Capitelli does not offer a public apology.

“It pisses me off that they wouldn’t apologize. All I wanted is an apology and now he’s saying that he won’t press charges? Of course he won’t. It’s silly. This needs to end,” Soto-Vigil said. “I felt violated that someone I work with went through my recycling just to get dirt. It’s reprehensible.”

Contact Ally Rondoni at arondoni@dailycal.org

The post Rent board candidate says Capitelli aid trespassed, violated state and local law appeared first on The Daily Californian.

When Tom Bates was last re-elected as mayor of Berkeley in 2008, we expected him to be a leader who could bring local officials and residents together.

Instead, he has proven to be a mayor who, especially in recent months, is unable to bridge the divide on the council and fails to adequately listen to the public at council meetings. The city needs a new mayor who can foster better communication and public engagement.

Jacquelyn McCormick has the best chance of being that kind of leader. McCormick, a neighborhood activist who ran for City Council in 2010, is the fresh face that the council needs so it can be a more effective body.

She is rightfully concerned about Berkeley’s financial woes and millions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. As a past business executive, she brings experience with managing budgets and an outside perspective that would help her implement sound reforms.  Furthermore, her idea to hold monthly town halls will ensure that the public is more involved with City Hall and that the council is attentive to its needs.

Candidate Kriss Worthington, who is currently the City Council member from District 7, has strong ideas but would have a more difficult time uniting the council. Worthington has vehemently opposed many of his colleagues’ tactics — for example, he joined protesters at the council meeting where Measure S was placed on the ballot. While he was right to do so in some circumstances, others have had a difficult time working with him, and the city needs a more inclusive mayor. That being said, Worthington has extensive experience with city government and would also take steps to improve the city’s fiscal standing through a rainy day fund. In this race, as with the City Council candidates, voters can rank their top three choices. Worthington deserves a second-rank vote.

Bates, though he must be replaced, has not been a completely terrible mayor. He leaves behind a strong legacy of environmental activism, a cause he promoted through his work on the city’s Climate Action Plan and the East Bay Green Corridor, a collaboration between UC Berkeley, the city of Berkeley and other cities and organizations to promote innovative “green” ideas. But it’s become excruciatingly clear that Bates has overstayed his welcome. His attitude toward the homeless, evinced by his enthusiastic support of Measure S, is problematic. At council meetings, he can be harsh and unaccommodating.

Choose a better leader to sit at the helm of the City Council. Vote Jacquelyn McCormick first and Kriss Worthington second for Berkeley mayor.

Denisha DeLane
City Council District 2

The choice for City Council in District 2 boils down to two out of the three candidates vying for the position: Denisha DeLane and Darryl Moore.

DeLane would do a better job than Moore, the incumbent, because she has a deeper connection to the wants and needs of the West Berkeley district. A longtime resident of the area, DeLane has a strong sense of community and would bring that understanding to the council. She’s concerned about Measure T, which is on the local ballot and would change the rules for development in the area. DeLane told this board that she wants to see the definition of “community benefits” — which Measure T would require for the new developments it allows — more precisely outlined. And with her sharp awareness of the District 2 community, knowledge she furthered while working for a previous council member, she is the candidate who could advocate for community benefits most effectively.

Moore shares some of DeLane’s goals. For instance, both candidates stressed that they want to do more to address crime in District 2. Moore is deserving of a second-rank vote, but his ideas for another term fall short of the enthusiastic community advocacy pushed for by DeLane. Adolfo Cabral, the third candidate running for the council in this district, does not seem to have a firm enough grasp on the issues to be a strong leader.

Vote Denisha DeLane first and Darryl Moore second for City Council in District 2.

Max Anderson
City Council District 3

Max Anderson pushes for change in areas that seem very important to District 3, which he currently represents on the City Council. He will work more on public health improvements and crime prevention in another term. When his goals are taken into consideration with the effective representation he has achieved so far, it’s clear that he would continue being a strong leader in another term on the council.

One of Anderson’s most recent accomplishments is helping to bring the Breathmobile, a mobile asthma care unit, to the city. The program will care for children with asthma, who are particularly impacted by air pollutants in the area. Anderson’s successful effort to provide that service for his constituents is admirable. During council meetings, he has been attentive to the needs of his district and has shown that he can work with other elected officials on policy matters.

His opponent in the race, nonprofit director Dmitri Belser, would pay close attention to engaging District 3 residents and being a responsive council member. Anderson could improve his performance in those fields, but overall, he has a better understanding of the issues his district faces.

Keep this consistent leader on the council. Vote Max Anderson for City Council in District 3.

Sophie Hahn
City Council District 5

2008 is repeating itself in District 5. Once again, Laurie Capitelli and Sophie Hahn are challenging each other for a hotly contested seat on Berkeley City Council. This time, Hahn presents a more innovative vision for the district.

In order to revitalize Solano Avenue, which has suffered from the economic downturn, Hahn places a commendable emphasis on working with the community.  She has stated an interest in bringing different stakeholders together — including neighbors and business owners — to develop a plan for the future of the avenue that works for them. She suggested emulating a design competition  Sepastopol, Calif. held for its downtown. Her plans would promote visionary ideas and create a new Solano for the community, by the community. This is what District 5 needs.

Hahn’s desire to incorporate residents into city politics is the right idea for Berkeley’s future. And her experience as an attorney and member of the Zoning Adjustments Board means she is already familiar with how local government functions and the complexities of city policy.

Incumbent Capitelli, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have done enough during his time on the council. Though he, too, understands the need for a vibrant economic climate, his plans fall short of Hahn’s fresh ideas.

Let’s get residents even more involved with crafting changes in the city. Vote Sophie Hahn for City Council in District 5.

Susan Wengraf
City Council District 6

Susan Wengraf is the only official candidate on the ballot for Berkeley City Council in District 6, and she will serve well in another term.

In March, members of her district in North Berkeley were alarmed by the tragic death of Peter Cukor, who some felt could have been saved if police weren’t as consumed with a nearby protest. Recognizing this, Wengraf stepped up to the plate. She called for a town hall meeting at which the community was able to make its concerns heard. Wengraf made the right call and demonstrated that she works well with her constituents and is responsive to their concerns.

In her next term, Wengraf hopes to bring down property crime, make Berkeley a more business-friendly city and boost efforts around public safety. Because much of her constituency is in the hills, Wengraf hopes to work out a plan that would cut down on vegetation to save homes and even lives in a time of disaster. Let her keep representing that area well. Vote Susan Wengraf for City Council in District 6.

Rent Board: Shelton, Shenoy, Soto-Vigil and Tregub

The battle for four positions on the city’s Rent Stabilization Board is especially contentious this year. Two slates are running in stark opposition to each another, but voters should look behind the slates and elect the candidates from both groups who will advocate for fairness and affordability in rent policy.

Members of the board primarily deal with the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance, passed by Berkeley voters in 1980 to regulate rent, defend tenants against unfair evictions and protect affordable housing. Recently, the rent board came under fire through an Alameda County Grand Jury Report that claimed that the board operates without sufficient oversight.

The report has been a major issue in the election, and for good reason. But the Tenants United for Fairness slate has placed an exceedingly narrow focus on supporting the report, to the extent that most of the candidates seem to be running on little else. Judy Hunt expressed concern for supporting Berkeley’s seniors, but she lacks the leadership skills necessary to be an efficient rent board member. Kiran Shenoy is the only candidate running with the TUFF slate who appears to comprehend the complexity of the rent board’s charge. Because of his background as an attorney, Shenoy emphasizes impartiality and will be a useful addition to a body that handles intricate issues related to the law.

Judy Shelton, Alejandro Soto-Vigil and Igor Tregub from the Progressive Affordable Housing slate also deserve to be elected. Shelton and Tregub are incumbents who have proven successful during their time. Shelton’s workshops for small-property landlords provide a necessary educational opportunity to her constituents and should continue. Tregub successfully pushed for stronger protections to temporarily displaced tenants in the city’s Relocation Ordinance and would continue fighting for tenants in another term.

And Soto-Vigil, as a member of the Housing Advisory Commission, is no stranger to housing-related issues. Aside from his staunch support of affordable housing, he understands how vital earthquake retrofits are to buildings where many students live, and he recognizes the importance of collaborating with Berkeley City Council on various issues.

The rent board cannot write off the grand jury’s criticisms, but there are many other issues that deserve the body’s attention. These four candidates understand that. Vote Judy Shelton, Kiran Shenoy, Alejandro Soto-Vigil and Igor Tregub for rent board.

Berkeley school board: Tracy Hollander and Judy Appel

It’s time for fresh faces on the Berkeley Unified School District board. The current board took a serious misstep when its singular nomination for superintendent earlier this year was a candidate who many residents felt did not align with Berkeley values. This year’s election can get the school board back on track.

Voters can choose two school board candidates. As a teacher, Tracy Hollander is equipped to make decisions that impact the classroom. She places due emphasis on “teaching to the top” — creating rigorous educational standards to which all students can rise, rather than catering to low-performing students.

Like Hollander, Judy Appel is well-versed in the district’s budget problems through her involvement on the Superintendent’s Budget Advisory Committee. Appel also has a track record of working with families and community members, including through her role as executive director of the Our Family Coalition, a Bay Area organization that advocates for LGBT families with children. Her broad-based support, seen everywhere from Assemblymember Nancy Skinner to the Berkeley Federation of Teachers and current members of the school board, backs up her claims that she can bring people together to accomplish something.

While incumbent Beatriz Levya-Cutler has done some important work during her tenure, specifically with regard to closing the achievement gap, Hollander and Appel bring more enthusiasm and new ideas to the table.

Vote Tracy Hollander and Judy Appel for the Berkeley school board.

The post Election 2012 Endorsements: City candidates appeared first on The Daily Californian.