Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
I meant "an endorsement from" not for, "SEIU Local 1020."
Contrary to this article's headline--"The Climate Takes a Hit"--the defeat of Berkeley's Measure T was a victory for the environment. The City's own Environmental Impact Report stated that the newly allowable development would generate so much traffic that major intersections (San Pablo, Dwight, Ashby, Gilman, University) would "fail," i.e. gridlock.
And as for false and misleading information, how about the Yes on T's fraudulent claim of an endorsement for SEIU Local 1020?
As the Save West Berkeley/No on T website http://www.savewestberkeley.org/ clearly indicates, opposition to Measure T was not, as Mr. Gammon claims, entirely based on the measure's threat to Aquatic Park. Along with that threat, the No on T campaign publicized the damage to the environment--including gridlocked streets and worsened pollution--from the allowable new development (all documented by the City's own Environmental Impact Report); and the measure's deregulation of land use in most of West Berkeley and likely inflation of rents and consequent displacement of long-established small businesses, artists and artisans. In truth, the council did not exempt the sites next to Aquatic Park from development. In truth, the council did reject protections for the park and its wildlife recommended by the Sierra Club.
I stand corrected--at least as far as my claim that Measure T says nothing Aquatic Park.
But my claim that Measure T does not provide protections for Aquatic Park is valid. The passage you cite is provisional. Moreover, Measure T also includes a passage stating that the council can amend the measure (should it pass) without a vote of the people:
Section 4. Amendment of Measure
The amendments adopted by the voters in this measure may be repealed or amended by the City Council without a vote of the people as long as any such amendments do not increase the aggregate amount of development allowed by this measure.
For a rich impression of the revelations at last night's Fair Campaign Practices Meeting: http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2….
To repeat, the City Attorney's analysis is NOT the measure itself, and Measure T says nothing about Aquatic Park.
The claim that Measure T would provide "millions of dollars of revenues for the city" is pure speculation. I invite Robert Gammon to provide a detailed analysis of that claim.
Maybe the Berkeley union representatives who recommended the No on T endorsement identified with the working people in West Berkeley who stand to lose their jobs if Measure T's deregulatory provisions go into effect, driving up property values and driving out many of the small and medium size small businesses in West Berkeley that rent their space. Many WB businesses, including Acme Bread, Libby Laboratories and Poly Seal Industries, have endorsed No on T.
As for the City Attorney's "official analysis of Measure T": Cowan's analyses are hardly notable for their objectivity. In any case, his analysis is one thing; the ballot measure itself is something else entirely. And again, Measure T says nothing about Aquatic Park.
Measure T supporters like to harp on the years that it took to formulate this proposal. What they never consider is, why in all that time, the council failed to come up with protections for the park, or for that matter, with specific community benefits.
The obvious answer is: they didn't want to come up with either protections for the park or community benefits. If Measure T passes, they will have little if any incentive to do either.
As for Ariana Casanova's references to the "county political committee": all I can say is that those references contradict what Pete Albert told the FCPC last night, and what the SEIU Local 1021 COPE Manual says about the union's endorsements procedures. Maybe she needs to read the Manual.
All Comments »
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation