Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
@DankDave the Deceiver
lol - It's so easy to debunk your lies. - You should take your own advice. From BallotPedia:
>>>"Revenue from the two taxes would be deposited in a new California Marijuana Tax Fund. First, the revenue would be used to cover costs of administrating and enforcing the measure. Next, it would be distributed to drug research, treatment, and enforcement, including:
$2 million per year to the UC San Diego Center for Medical Cannabis Research to study medical marijuana.
$10 million per year for 11 years for public California universities to research and evaluate the implementation and impact of Proposition 64. Researchers would make policy-change recommendations to the California Legislature and California Governor.
$3 million annually for five years to the Department of the California Highway Patrol for developing protocols to determine whether a vehicle driver is impaired due to marijuana consumption.
$10 million, increasing each year by $10 million until settling at $50 million in 2022, for grants to local health departments and community-based nonprofits supporting "job placement, mental health treatment, substance use disorder treatment, system navigation services, legal services to address barriers to reentry, and linkages to medical care for communities disproportionately affected by past federal and state drug policies."
The remaining revenue would be distributed as follows:
60 percent to youth programs, including drug education, prevention, and treatment.
20 percent to prevent and alleviate environmental damage from illegal marijuana producers.
20 percent to programs designed to reduce driving under the influence of marijuana and a grant program designed to reduce negative impacts on health or safety resulting from the proposition.
@Deborah Tharp: Name one offense--just *one*--that's a felony or misdemeanor under Prop 64 that isn't already now, because we can name *several* offenses that are felonies or misdemeanors now that are completely legal under 64!
@Dave Armstrong: Your "most federally conforming law in the nation" didn't prevent over 15,000 people, disproportionally black and brown--which you're *not*, right Dave?--from being arrested for weed related felonies and misdemeanors in California last year; Prop 64 will cut that number in *at least* half, based on the experience of the other legal states and DC, not to mention that the mere *claim* "I smell marijuana" by a cop will no longer give him carte blanche to detain, search, seize suspected drug money, etc, etc.
Its where the people go--not to jail anymore--that matters; where the money goes--not *your* pockets anymore, right Dave?--is a distant second, at best.
Stop calling prop 64 legalization. It's criminalization, fees and fines
Does anyone know when the next meeting is when we can help support the preservation of the site?
OPD has been a mess for years. Even though it is improving, without structural improvement in the oversight of OPD, it could easily slide backwards once the Federal monitors leave sometime in the next year or two.
Measure LL was crafted to make sure OPD gets better and stays better.
LL moves the current civilian police review board out from under the control of the City Administrator and renames it the Police Commission. Under the current system, the same City Administrator who oversees OPD, also oversees the current civilian review board.
LL gives the new Commission and its investigatory arm, the authority to investigate and discipline police officers, participate in the hiring and firing of police chiefs, and make recommendations to improve OPD policies and procedures.
The Commission members are selected by a combination of methods. But all will get tenure and have staggered terms so they will be insulated from political influence. Similar to the new City Ethics Commission.
Over the years and many different mayors, the City Administrators have often rejected the decisions of the civilian review board. They get too close to the police they oversee and they take civilian review board decisions as criticisms of their own oversight of OPD. The current system also allows the Oakland police union, OPOA, to exert their political influence over the City Administrator. Measure LL eliminates the inherent conflict of interest having the same City Administrator both run OPD and have veto power over the civilian review board. It removes much of the opportunity for OPOA to influence discipline decisions.
The only organized opposition to LL has been the Oakland Police Officers Association PAC paid for attacks on two early sponsors of LL: Council Members Dan Kalb and Noel Gallo.
There is no opposing argument in the election booklet.
LL is endorsed by a broad spectrum of elected officials and former officials including Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Mayor Libby Schaaf, State Assemblyman Rob Bonta, and former State Assembly members Nancy Skinner and Sandre Swanson, 6 out of 8 Oakland City Council Members.
Organizations supporting LL include the League of Women's Voters, the Democratic Party of Alameda County, California Nurses Association, MOBN, ACLU, NAACP, SEIU 1021, and the Oakland Teachers Association
On Sunday Oct 230 930am to noon at the Temescal Farmers Market come by for a free balloon and ask your questions about LL .
Dear Cat Wilder -- Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment.
I know the Obama administration did that, and I won't be surprised if our state Assembly and the city of Berkeley did something similar, as you state.
However, none of those actions carries with it the force of law as regards EBRPD or the city of Fremont. They're simply expressions of sentiments, like letters to the editor of a newspaper.
At the federal level, first the U.S. would have had to sign the treaty (we didn't) and the Senate would have to ratify it (but it can't take any action, since there's no treaty to ratify). The Obama administration's endorsing UNDRIP has no legal effect by itself. It might have some practical effect of dubious legal legitimacy, since President Obama lately has taken it on himself to decree laws on the ground that Congress won't do as he wishes, an attitude I think George III would have admired. Naturally, the courts keep finding his decree-laws unconstitutional, but I imagine he and President Clinton will keep trying.
At the state level, the Legislature would have to enact and the governor sign a bill putting UNDRIP into effect. An Assembly joint resolution wouldn't be enough.
As for Berkeley, I don't know if the city action carries the force of law, but if so, it can't apply to either EBRPD or Fremont.
Ohlone college has an entrance why can't the city and school do something to stop the building of a parking lot and use there's. Dam I've been living in the east bay for a long time haven't gone to mission peak in awhile. I didn't know it's becoming that popular.
I think you need to read it. Tax revenue will go to important state needs, not to "corrupt corporate cannabis cronies", but I like that alliteration.
Michelin ignores so many good dining cities, Hopefully Oakland will get its time soon
The law we have now (Prop. 215) is the most federally conforming law in the nation. If we we're following it properly there would not be the problems we have today. Blame this on our own state and local governments for misleading and misguiding us to form unlawful entities just so they can "Cash in on our Use"! Prop. 64 does NOT put money into the much needed and necessary infrastructure it puts the money into the hands of the corrupt corporate cannabis cronies and their shills! Maybe the spokesman should read all 62 pages of the measure and find out for himself rather than just collecting a paycheck for once again misleading and misguiding the people!
Re: Measure KK
I oppose the City of Oaklands $600 million Bond Measure KK because the property tax that pays for it will be twice the stated cost of the bond. The bond is for $600 million but the property tax is $1,179,640,700 [approximately $1.2 billion]. [See Measure KK TAX RATE STATEMENT 4] This doubling of the cost is due to the fact the bond omits the financing costs. Oaklands presentation of Measure KK is deceptive because the only mention of the true property tax cost [$1,179,640,700] of the $600 million bond is buried on the last page of the measure hidden among many other numbers such as parcel property tax rates. Nowhere in Measure KK does Oakland state the finance cost of the bond, as law requires.
I oppose this $600 million Bond Measure KK because Oakland is not capable of administering a contract wisely. The Alameda County Grand Jury found that Oakland totally mismanaged the recent $50 million garbage contract resulting in a 50% increase of our monthly garbage bill. [See 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report @ acgov.org/grandjury on p.39] Now Oakland wants $600 million of taxpayer money to dole out and manage in contracts. Oakland has proven that it cannot manage money wisely and should not be trusted with large budget until it has proven ability to manage small budgets.
I oppose this $600 million Bond Measure KK because the taxpayers were not consulted either as to the importance of the projects or the costs of them. The Bond Measure and the supporting documents refer to budget items such as Streets and Roads Projects, in the amount of $350 million for repaving repairs. Oakland refuses to release documents that show the existing repaving budget, the existing funds for the repaving or the why more funds are needed.
Congress Representative Barbara Lee has done a fantastic job of bringing home Federal funds to repave Oakland streets. City Administration Office has made no attempt to inform the property owners why Oakland needs more money for paving than the Federal funds and the Oakland ongoing paving budget already provides. Oakland has failed to explain the $350 million shortfall in the paving budget. The Bond documents merely states the problem without informing the taxpayers the existing resources that solve the problem.
Oaklands infrastructure improvements need to be done incrementally. The taxpayer must evaluate the value received before additional tax money is supplied. All new property taxes should be spent on Oaklands infrastructure; not 50% given to Wall Street financiers.
Vote NO on Oaklands waste of our tax dollars! Vote NO on Measure KK!
This is appalling.
In response to imtnbke's comment about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) having not being adopted by the United States:
Actually, the Obama administration officially reversed the former US position on the UNDRIP, explicitly stating US endorsement of the Declaration:
Furthermore, the state of California officially endorsed the UNDRIP in 2014 with Assembly Joint Resolution No. 42:
Also, setting a leading example, this year (2016) the City of Berkeley officially adopted the UNDRIP as municipal policy:
Ok, let's get EBRPD to amend Ordinance 38 to ban cameras on Mission Peak. If there are no pictures taken, then is it okay to build the parking lot?
I'd also like someone to post a link to the archeological survey of the land at Option A so that it is clear what particular cultural significance is at this site.
My Comment is very short, From here we go to Africa! If you invite me to your event as speaker I will let know .Way?
Almaz Tesfazghi Yihdego!
Increase access? Sounds like people are getting up there just fine without the additional parking lot. Leave native lands alone. Don't accommodate the selfie takers.
Time to sue the district, county, city, and state, plus all of those companies in the mix... time to put some sting into the words....
Re the article's recital that parking opponents "noted that the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People requires governments of signatory nations to obtain 'free, prior, and informed consent' from tribal leadership for projects that impact indigenous cultural heritage": the United States is not a signatory nation. We voted against the UNDRIP treaty and it has no legal force in this country. Even if we'd voted for it, the U.S. Senate would have to have ratified it for it to have any legal effect, and the Senate hasn't done so (naturally, inasmuch as it hasn't had to even consider the question).
Jose Perez, the problem is at the Stanford Avenue trailhead, not the Ohlone College one. Making it more expensive to park at the Ohlone College trailhead will worsen, not improve, the situation at Stanford Avenue.
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation