Where do we go from here?

On July 8, the city council passed a Middle Housing Ordinance which allowed for more density than the original proposal. (Summaries of the original proposal and descriptions are on the Home page). It did it in the most egregious manner possible, maliciously lecturing those opposed and making us out to be greedy, uncaring obstructionists intent on protecting our own little fiefdoms; wanting to exclude anyone not rich from settling in Berkeley; and being anti-immigrant, anti-children, and anti-middle class.  It was a hideous showing by two of our elected council members, rendered doubly shocking by the complicity of the mayor and the other council members, who did not rise to the defense of our measured, reasonable arguments.

If you think this must be hyperbole, then you weren’t at or listening to the council meeting. Consider this:

Before public comment even began, Councilmember Mark Humbert preemptively decided he would give no quarter to the public sentiment, chastising the public with, in part, this:

“I also—you know--want to take this opportunity to express how disappointed I am that there are some folks, who are so resistant to welcoming new homes and people into Berkeley, that they are going to these lengths to try and stop it.”

But Humbert’s complaint was minor compared to Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani’s. She was behind the last-minute density change, and after public comments closed, in a fever-pitched screed, she said this to the public:

“…we are fighting for our city-for the people in our city-for the teachers. The after-school workers-okay- the janitors, the custodians, the people who take care of your yard. They bike in from Richmond. Why can’t they have a chance to live here? Why can’t they live here, too? The way you got to live here when you bought your house 30 years ago. This is for the next generation. For my kid-and your kid and the grandkids who are going to Ohlone park. Why is that a bad thing? Why can’t we make space for more people?”

Just to be clear, the Middle Housing ordinance has no mandate for affordability that would make housing in Berkeley accessible to the groups CM Kesarwani cares so passionately about, but forgot to provide for in the measure. Despite this oversight, not a single other council member stood up to suggest that we had legitimate concerns, or that our dedication to our city is any different from theirs, or that the motives of a concerned public should not be impugned. Even the mayor, who campaigned on being a conciliator who would bring the city together, remained silent and let the tongue lashing proceed. It was, indeed, a new low for our city and a pathetic show of raw power from the council.

(Listen to Councilmembers Humbert and Kesarwani where you can also read annotated transcripts of their full remarks.)

But now we come to the cold, hard truth. After exploring every avenue involving the courts that we could think of, the well has run dry. None of the legal challenges to what the city council has done seem to be viable. (Here is what we have found out).

There are undoubtedly some smaller stones left unturned, but even in the best case, they would not defeat the proposal, but rather only postpone the inevitable.

The last viable option is to sponsor an initiative to let the voters decide if this specific massive increase in allowed density--at the expense of open space, fire concerns, biodiversity, likely gentrification, neighbors’ inputs, and all the other serious concerns we raised, should be left to stand, or if what we had asked for to begin with – open, clear discussion and debate of alternatives in order to determine and achieve a goal – should be the city’s course of action.

Some of you have contacted Build a Better Berkeley to say you think we should do something, but more importantly, indicating your willingness to help in some capacity. That is the all-important ingredient, because it will take a lot of people, a lot of work, and some funding. So, we are again asking what kind of commitment you are willing to make.

We will need organizers and people willing to take leadership roles. We will need people to donate money. We will need people to do everything—all the way down to circulating petitions and doing general clerical work. We will need to gather 5250 valid signatures, which equates to at least 6500 (and probably more) raw signatures. (Signatures are lost because people sign twice, sign with improper addresses, sign illegibly, sign when not registered to vote, and myriad other ways that make it impossible to match against the voter registration rolls.)

If you are committed to this effort please let us know!

One thousand two hundred and ten (1210) of you signed our online petition. That’s plenty of people to get this done! The question is, will you participate in any way you can, be it small or large, or will you sit on the sidelines and hope someone else takes care of it?

One answer will help us regain control of our city from a power structure that doesn’t value us in the least. The other will just result in the same old, same old.

The choice is yours.