Yes On L Campaign Resorts to Illegal Tactics

Nailing Placards to Power Poles Creates “Life-Threatening” Risk to Workers and Fire Hazards

The Yes on L Campaign, which champions Berkeley’s $650 million mega bond to “enhance safety,” has resorted to unlawful campaign tactics resulting in risks to workers and the public. In recent days, campaign placards have been nailed across the access rungs of power poles rendering them hazardous and inaccessible to utility workers.

Nailing signs to utility poles is a violation of the Berkeley Municipal Code. Safety advocates have launched public education campaigns designed to protect workers from the life-threatening risk posed by signs in general and nails in particular.

The clamped safety boots used by line workers to climb poles are vulnerable to becoming snagged on staples and nails embedded in posts. Foreign objects can also tear utility workers’ protective clothing, which is the first line of protection from an electric shock in the event of an accident. They can also injure workers despite the safety gear they wear to avoid contact with rough surfaces.

https://safeelectricity.org/posting-items-utility-poles-creates-safety-risks/

Blocking access to electrical lines also compounds fire risk as campaign placards block timely access to hazardous wires or transformers that may need replacement or repair. Besides the dangers posed by nailed placards, illegally placed campaign signs can cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.

WOM Berkeley finds it ironic that the same elected officials who want residents to entrust them with a $650 million line of credit are in leadership positions for a campaign that puts workers and residents at risk, wastes thousands of taxpayer dollars and violates city law. If you observe illegal campaign placards you are encouraged to report the location to the City Clerk clerk@cityofberkeley.info.

Examples of Campaign Placards Nailed to Utility Poles

No sign, poster, placard, card, sticker, banner, or other device calculated to attract attention of the public shall be posted, printed, stamped, stuck or otherwise affixed to or placed upon any public sidewalk, crosswalk, median strip, curb, lamppost, hydrant, tree, utility pole, any fixture of the traffic control, fire alarm or police alarm system of the City, except:… placards, cards, stickers, or flyers that do not cause a hazard to pedestrian or vehicle traffic, and that are affixed to City-owned utility poles and lampposts in a manner consistent with standards promulgated by the Department of Public Works.

https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/20.16.010

Overdrawn: City Council Has Promised Over $850 M in New Spending

Infrastructure Repairs May be Neglected for Special Projects

This post has been revised as the Measure L Campaign Now Claims 1,700 units of housing will be built

Proponents of Berkeley’s $650 million mega bond (Measure L) have promised approximately $881 million in new spending. This spending includes 1,700 units of subsidized housing, a new recreational pier, City Hall and Civic Center rebuilding, underground utilities, infrastructure repairs and in-district amenities such as pools. WOM Berkeley estimates cost to be $881lion in today’s dollars and could run as high as $1 billion.

The Yes on L campaign’s growing subsidized housing numbers may be a reflection of the fact that special interests that will benefit have donated $65,000 to the campaign. The increase focus on building suggests that funds will not be available for the infrastructure repairs we desperately need.

Opponents of Measure L cite a lack of planning as a major concern with the bond measure. These concerns appear to be validated by this evolving list of promises that exceed available funds.

 

We don’t know what projects or issues the money will be spent on because crucial advanced planning has not happened 

Berkeleyans for Better Planning

 

Perhaps most troubling for Within Our Means Berkeley is that we believe the most urgent need is to repair city infrastructure which by most reports is in critical condition. As streets, sidewalks, sewers and storm water systems fail costs multiply. The fact that City Council is championing new projects suggests that funds claimed to be for infrastructure repairs will be diverted. In fact, Measure L has specific language that gives City Council the power to spend funds on any project they choose. During the discussion [time stamp 1:29:00] to place the borrowing measure on the ballot City Council suggest up to 1,700 units could be built, and this should be the priority program.

City Council has been actively promoting its spending plan on social media

[1] Vision 2050 Plan Update

Hurried, Opaque and Non-Responsive

City Leadership Ignores Request to Clarify Specifics of Ballot Measure L

Berkeley's Open Government policy states that residents are entitled to understand the actions of city government.

Democracy … requires that the public have an opportunity to understand the government’s activities … the purpose of this ordinance is … to ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity to be informed of the City’s activities and to communicate its concerns to its elected and appointed officials.

Open government requires openness from city officials. In the case of Berkeley’s $650 million mega bond (Ballot Measure L) such responsiveness is lacking. In a previous post, we identified language in Measure L that appears to give City Council a blank check in terms of bond money spending. We have repeatedly asked the City Attorney to clarify if the measure provides City Council with total discretion regarding the disbursement of funds.

Over two weeks have passed, and city officials have not responded. Our request was exceedingly narrow and focused, by design, to enable a timely response. Further, the section in question was extensively marked up, suggesting city officials are well aware of its implications. However, contrary to Berkeley’s Open Government policy, they have chosen not to respond.

Opponents assert Measure L suffers from a lack of planning and specifics. The vagaries of the ballot language supports these claims. Perhaps more disconcerting is that city officials, bound by an Open Government policy, appear unwilling to provide the public with an opportunity to understand their activities.

 

City Officials appeared to have labored in marking up language stating that there is no “guarantee" Measure L funds will be used for any particular purpose

We have subsequently requested that the authors of the resolution authorizing the bond measure (the Mayor and Councilmembers Hahn, Kesarwani and Wengraf) clarify the language above. Perhaps, our elected officials will be more responsive?

Measure L opponents cite a lack of specifics

Diverse Coalition Opposes Berkeley Measure L

 Berkeleyans for Better Planning Launches Formal “Vote No” Campaign

A diverse community coalition has formed to oppose Berkeley Measure L -- the $650 million bond measure. The group, Berkeleyans for Better Planning, includes community based organizations and representatives from across the political spectrum. The group states: 

We support funding for affordable housing, roads, and other infrastructure needs. But this vague measure contains no guarantees that bond revenues will be spent on the laundry list of various issues it claims to address.

Addressing Berkeley’s numerous challenges requires more than money. It requires planning, prioritization, and accountability, 

Ongoing research by WOM Berkeley suggests the group’s concerns are legitimate. Measure L makes no specific commitments and appears to give City Council discretion over how funds will be spent.

Berkeleyans for Better planning also questions the measures long-term borrowing which will require an estimated $1.1 billion to pay back. One resident is quoted as saying:

I don’t want the young people of Berkeley paying for the next 48 years for what the city should already have been doing – nor should you. No on L!

Berkeleyans for Better Planning may be found at: https://berkeleyansforbetterplanning.org

Home Page Image for Berkeleyand for Better Planning

City Council’s “Blank Check"

26 Words That Suggest Anything Goes With Measure L Mega Bond Funds

Measure L, if passed, will give City Council the authority to borrow $650 million.Supporters claim that the funds will be used for subsidized housing ($200M), street and sidewalk improvements ($300M) and other unspecified infrastructure ($150M). But there is no guarantee that any of that will actually take place.  Buried within the 2700+ word measure is a 26 word sentence that suggests anything goes. 

These dollar amounts are estimates and are not a commitment or guarantee that any specific amounts will be spent on particular projects or categories of projects.

This statement suggests to us that City Council has ultimate discretion on the disbursement of funds. Further, the measure sates:

City Council cannot guarantee that the Bonds will provide sufficient funds to allow completion of all needed Improvements. 

This statement suggests to us the City Council recognizes the $300 million suggested for improvements is insufficient to address the more than $1.2 billion in liabilities.

It appears City Council has given itself a blank check with a no guarantees clause. We have asked the Berkeley City Attorney whether this interpretation is correct. We look forward to her response and sharing it with you.

Subject: Ballot Measure L Language

Date: August 31, 2022 at 8:36:51 AM PDT

To: attorney@cityofberkeley.info

Dear City Attorney:

The authorization for submission of a November 8, 2022 ballot measure (Measure L) includes the statement:

All dollar amounts included are estimates at the time of adoption of this Resolution and are not a commitment or guarantee that any specific amounts will be spent on particular projects or categories of projects.

The language above indicates that City Council has ultimate discretion on the disbursement of funds, and subsequent language describing the “approximate” or “estimated” totals or funding amounts is non-binding with regard to future expenditures should this measure pass. 

Is the interpretation above consistent with your understanding of the cited statement?

An update to this post may be found here. 

Full Language from Measure L:

 

Section 4. Estimated Cost of Improvements. 

The estimated cost of the Affordable Housing Improvements to be funded by the Bonds is $200 million. The estimated cost for the Infrastructure Improvements is $450 million, of which $300 million may be allocated to Infrastructure Improvements related to street, sidewalk and traffic safety and $150 million may be allocated to other Infrastructure Improvements, including those related to public safety and climate resiliency. These dollar amounts are estimates and are not a commitment or guarantee that any specific amounts will be spent on particular projects or categories of projects.