There’s little doubt — the months of October and November were intense — the thrilling improbability of the San Francisco Giants winning the World Series, the youthful excitement of Halloween with a zillion young Elsa’s going door-to-door on Mariposa and Russell and all points between, the shocking apathy of voters on November 4th, and the stores filled with Christmas well before the Thanksgiving turkey was even purchased.
No matter how you marked your ballot, we bet you all are as happy as we are that it’s all over. The robo calls have thankfully ended and the three inch stack of political mailers has finally stopped growing. The election is over and that’s that, but we are left with two big questions.
Voter Apathy. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the turnout of registered voters in California was in the low 40 percent, and that if you further consider the turnout of eligible voters, the number would be in the low 30 percent. They stated these numbers hold for the whole country as well as California so we presume it’s pretty true for Berkeley too. Such a low turnout in the heart of political activism certainly merits at least a cursory second look and an answer to the simple question — Why? Did it mean voters are so satisfied with the way things are going, they didn’t feel it necessary to vote. Did it mean that voters are so depressed about the way things are going that they didn’t think their vote would make any difference? Do voters care about local issues when there’s no hot presidential primary? Was everyone just so confused that they just threw up their hands and walked away? BNC would like to hear your theory not about the outcome, but why people didn’t vote and what can be done to encourage greater participation in the electoral process. BNC will publish what you think without editing, so feel free to let your thoughts roam keeping in mind that the whole purpose is to increase voter participation, not why or how to manipulate an election to come out in a certain way.
Where Do We Go from Here? Well, Zach Franklin, who says he lives in South Berkeley with his wife and two daughters, wrote an article, Op-Ed: No on Measure R Isn’t Nearly Enough, that was published in the Opinionator Section of Berkeleyside, on November 10. 2014. BNC applauds Mr. Franklin for stepping up and saying something because this is what democracy and civil discourse is all about. So, thank you Mr. Franklin, but we have to add that while we agree with part of what you say, we disagree with the direction you are advocating.
Mr. Franklin is rightly concerned about the loss of middle-class families from Berkeley because of high housing costs. He clearly believes that building more housing is the answer to at least slow down this trend, and he offers some reasons as to why building more housing doesn’t happen :
- voters and politicians don’t like change so opt to maintain the status quo. Tenants in rent-controlled units don’t get reduced rents so they don’t get involved, and a housing shortage increases property values, so they don’t get involved with the result there is no constituency for building more housing; and
- property owners buy into the neighborhood and don’t want changes that will impact their quality of life, like more what he calls “annoying” traffic, so they react and “fight hard against new housing.”
He writes that this kind of reasoning “makes sense” but concludes that it’s “making it impossible for working people to live here.” He goes on to offer three ideas for people to turn this around without raising taxes:
- Start a citywide up-zoning. Use the Downtown as a model for the whole city.
- When building more housing, require either a percentage for low income families or impose in-lieu fees paid into the Housing Trust Fund.
- Make sure that in the up-zoning effort that working families with kids can actually participate. Planning efforts are too often dominated by a small group of people who have plenty of spare time.
Mr. Franklin concludes his article with the following
It’s time to be honest with ourselves about the impact of the status quo on the folks who can no longer afford to live here, folks who tend to be low-income people of color. We need to ask whether we are willing to make some personal sacrifices in terms of housing density to lessen that impact. Personally I think the benefits will greatly outweigh the sacrifices, in terms of greater economic vitality; more restaurants, shops and services within walking distance; maintaining the economic, racial and cultural diversity of our community; and reduced pressure on suburban sprawl.
O.K. You’ve heard Mr. Franklin’s response to the question — Where do we go from here. We’ve followed various zoning issues and reported on them in an effort to build a broader understanding of our complicated Ordinances, and we will continue to do so. Over the past year, we have begun to see that the actions taken as a whole by our City leaders regarding these issues are a reflection of their vision for our future.
As we begin to see the overall picture, is this what we want for our City? Do we want something different, and if we do, what is it? Too often, we react to what we don’t want. Is it time to start being specific about what we do want? Only you can answer that question, but the time has come to think about it. So, BNC suggests that we have a conversation with various viewpoint holders about the essential questions regarding development and density, how much and where. And, we need to have that conversation soon. Since we are approaching a fresh new year, why not begin this conversation as soon as possible? BNC proposes that we discuss doing this at our next general meeting in January. Watch for the announcement of that meeting date and plan on being there to ensure that you are a part of planning this conversation about Berkeley’s future. That’s what we’ve been thinking about!