This will be THE candidate forum to go to in the East Bay for to meet the candidates for the most competitive races in Oakland, Berkeley, and beyond.

More details about invitees will follow soon, but save the date. You can bet that candidates for Oakland Mayor and City Council, and Berkeley City Council will be there, just for starters.

Read the candidate’s questionnaires here!!

RSVP on Facebook!

Thursday, September 9, 2010

7pm-10pm

UC Berkeley Campus

Genetics & Plants Biology Building, Room 100

(Near Oxford St. & Berkeley Way)

Take transit!

Take BART and get off at the Downtown Berkeley station.  Walk Up Center St. towards the campus.  Enter the campus via the “Main Entrance”.  The GPB Building is adjacent to the new building currently under construction.

View Speed Candidating in a larger map

EBYD Second Annual Awards Gala!

East Bay Young Dems is elated to honor Assemblymember Nancy Skinner as the recipient of EBYD’s “Elected Official of the Year” Award and Nwamaka “Amaka” Agbo with our Kick-Ass Youth Advocate Award at our annual gala. Join us for celebration, food, and drinks at Soja Studio, a beautiful, remodeled yoga studio in the Jack London Square neighborhood.

The EBYD Gala will be held on Wednesday, July 28th at 7:00pm at Soja Studio, 550 2nd Street in Oakland. Please join us in honoring Assemblywoman Skinner and Nwamaka “Amaka” Agbo by purchasing a ticket or sponsorship. Proceeds will help us continue to engage young people into the political scene. We need your help to do this! If you are not a current dues paying member of EBYD or need to renew your membership, please take advantage of our discount for purchase of a ticket and membership; a savings of $10!

Individual Tickets
Member – $30.00
Non-Member – $35.00
Ticket & Membership – $50.00

Sponsorships
Advocate (includes 2 tickets) – $100.00
Mover ‘n Shaker (includes 3 tickets) – $250.00
Leader (includes 4 tickets) – $500.00
Champion (includes 7 tickets) – $1,000.00
Show your support today by purchasing a ticket online!

To purchase a ticket, click here

Special thanks to our event co-hosts!

Leaders:

Hon. Don Perata, Hon. Jesse Arreguin, UFCW Local 5

Mover n’ Shakers:

APA Democratic Caucus of Alameda County, Hon. Joan Buchanan, Hon. Abel J. Guillen, Cal Dems, Hon. Rebecca Kaplan, Andy Kelley, National Women’s Political Caucus-Alameda North, Oaksterdam University, Jennifer Ong, Hon. Courtney Ruby, Libby Schaaf, Melanie Shelby, Hon. Betty Yee

Advocates:

Hon. Sandre Swanson, George Beier, Rob Bonta, Hon. Keith Carson, ClearChannel Outdoor, Josh Daniels, Amy DeReyes, Sean Dugar, Hon. Elizabeth Echols, Frieda K. Edgette, Richard Fuentes, Ipsheeta Furtado, Hon. Loni Hancock, Hon. Ann-Marie Hogan, Hon. Edie Irons, Kiran Jain, Hon. Andy Katz, Hon. Royce Kelley, Vicky Kolakowski, Hon. Marlon McWilson, Elsa Ortiz, Shilen Patel, Rena Rickles, Hon. Joaquin Rivera, Hon. Ces Rosales, Rebecca Saltzman, Hon. Tim Sbranti, Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont, Hon. Tony Thurmond, Hon. Igor Tregub, Hon. Kriss Worthington, Hon. Joel Young

East Bay Young Dems’ trajectory has been as explosive on East Bay politics as that of our generation on the national scene. As the premier organization dedicated to engaging young working people in Alameda County into Democratic politics, we meet young people where they are and speak to them in a language that’s authentic. In the coming year, we seek to further refine and professionalize our club, focus our political capacity toward real budget reform, and diversify our membership base. We are strengthening our foundation and relationships for a more sustainable and inclusive tomorrow.

For more up to date information, please visit or Annual Gala page!

Download PDF

The Oakland mayoral race will probably be one of the more interesting races to watch in 2010.  As such, it is important that young voters get to know the facts about the candidates and learn the issues that important to each candidate.  Here at EBYD, we have not endorsed a candidate for this position (yet).  So here are the people running and places where you can learn more about what they want to do for Oakland.

***Oakland’s First Mayoral Forum***

There will be a mayoral forum in Oakland on Thursday, June 10th at the First Unitarian Church at 685 14th St. in Oakland.  You can RSVP at the Facebook page.

All three candidates should be there and it would be a great chance to learn about all three and hear them debate on the best way to bring Oakland forward.

In the Oakland Mayoral Race, there are three main contenders for the city’s top position:

	Don Perata – Former State Senate President – www.perata4mayor.com Don Perata is a candidate from the “Old Guard”.  And i mean that in a loving way.  He has a lot of support from the business community and will likely fight Kaplan for support from Labor.  Don Perata has been working the neighborhood scene with gusto.  Almost every other week, he holds a neighborhood meeting or “town hall” (he likes to call them “community conversations”) to discuss his vision for Oakland.  Don Perata will hold his next community meeting on Wednesday, May 26th at 7pm in the Glenview/Diamond Heights District at 4101 Park Blvd., Oakland.  Visit his website for more info.
	Jean Quan – Oakland City Councilmember, District 4 – www.jeanquanforoakland.org Jean Quan is leaving her City Council position to run for Mayor.  She spent many years as a well liked member of the Oakland School Board.  She has been trying to distinguish herself as the “Education Candidate” in this mayor race.  She currently has no events in the coming weeks to speak of.
	Rebecca Kaplan – Oakland City Councilmember, At-Large – www.kaplanformayor.org Rebecca Kaplan has a wave of enthusiasm behind her.  She is young and a political newbie compared to the other two candidates.  Only recently (2008) was she elected to her current position as Oakland’s only At-Large councilmember.  Before that she served on the AC Transit Board.   Rebecca will have a fundraiser on Thursday, June 3rd at the Bench & Bar in Downtown Oakland.  The cost is only $25.  You can RSVP at her Facebook event page.

San Francisco is now trying do what AC Transit has been trying for years… build a Bus Rapid Transit system along one of their busiest traffic corridors: Van Ness Avenue.

Zennie Abrams’ San Francisco Blog takes a brief look at both BRT on Van Ness and in Berkeley.  His point is one that was by many others, including myself.  BRT has yet to provide opponents with any tangible evidence that BRT will hurt businesses.

Again, I see no example where businesses would be harmed in any way. Indeed, considering Bus traffic congestion along Telegraph Avenue and Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley, BRT’s the perfect solution to improve public transit performance.

Here is a video animation of what the Van Ness BRT will look like:

Lets Move Berkeley Forward!

As far as Berkeley is concerned, Zennie is correct in saying that more education is needed and the Berkeley City Council vote of 4-2-2 is hardly conclusive and there is still a chance to educate the City Council on BRT.  In the blog, Living in the O, Joel Ramos calls on supporters in North Oakland to push for better transit so that Berkeley’s decision will not harm those in North Oakland, who would be left out if AC Transit choses to build BRT and leave out Berkeley.

BRT supporters who live in North Oakland should see this as a “call to arms” for BRT in the Temescal, which may now be left out of the scope of the project if AC Transit decides not to build anything in Berkeley, and instead opt to turn BRT around at either Macarthur BART or at the Uptown Transit center.

To help in that fight, join a group of North Oakland BRT supporters by contacting Joel Ramos of TransForm at joel@TransFormCa.org or contact Councilmember Brunner yourself (jbrunner@oaklandnet.com) and let her know of your continued support for BRT with bike lanes and dedicated lanes in the Temescal.

Those living in Berkeley should contact our own City Councilmembers and urge them to support BRT and improve conditions on Telegraph.  If you need some talking points, read my previous post on BRT in Berkeley.  BRT runs directly through Kriss Worthington’s district and you can contact him at kworthington@cityofberkeley.info.  Another Councilmember to contact is Jesse Arreguin, who abstained in the Council’s vote.  You can reach Jesse at jarreguin@cityofberkeley.info.

Only in 2008 did Kaplan ride a wave of enthusiasm to win her current seat as Oaklands only At-Large (city-wide) Council-member.  Last month, Kaplan announced the creation of her exploratory committee, a must first step to run for any politcal office.  Though her run is not official just yet, it is all but certain to most observers that shes in the game.

Our friends at Oakland North were able to have a one-on-one chat with Rebecca Kaplan on her vision of the future for Oakland.  Here is a brief excerpt but be sure to read the full interview here.

Q: You talk about making changes at City Hall.  What is working and what is not working to attract businesses to Oakland?

In Oakland right now, you cannot apply for a business permit online. So the businesspeople come down to downtown and stand in the lines and lose time. We are wasting money, and we are paying people to sit entering the data, when instead, the businessperson could go onto the Internet and put in information to pay their fees and do their business licenses.  Meanwhile, we get complaints all the time when people try to call — they have questions about parking tickets and business licenses, and they say nobody is answering phones.  We are wasting all these staff [hours] typing data from a piece of paper that a businessperson can put in themselves online.

So when we look at how we are structuring the jobs inside City Hall, there are a lot of things where we are still not fully entered into the modern era in terms of technology and our systems. And if we change some of those, we could free up some staff time to do the things that people do need.

Read the full interview here.

Two Thursdays ago, the Berkeley City Council voted on the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) plan for AC Transit’s East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project.  The Council essentially had three options: 1) “Full Build”, as recommended by the city staff, which would mean dedicated lanes running up Telegraph Avenue and “island” bus stops, where passengers could board the bus in the middle of the road, much like you see in San Francisco on Market Street. 2) A “Reduced Impact Alternative” as prepared by Mayor Bates and other councilmembers, which was a watered down version of the Full Build option, but still included dedicated lanes and islands.  3) A so-called “Rapid Bus Plus” (RBP) option which, in essence, is a no-build option because it removed all dedicated lanes and made no lane reconfigurations on roads.

After impassioned, and sometimes theatrical testimony by the public, the Berkeley City Council succumbed to NIMBY pressure and rejected any elements of full-build and endorsed only option three, the so-called, “Rapid Bus Plus” plan.

Before I go into the issues of BRT, let me quickly address the importance of the LPA and why you should be upset that Berkeley has practically killed the BRT project for everyone else.  In very simplified terms, the way a project like this goes is that AC Transit puts together an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on how they want the project to run.  In this case, they give their preferred route for a BRT system from San Leandro to Oakland to Berkeley.  This is then sent to each city for review.  Each city then decides what they believe is the best alternative for their city, the LPA.

You need to understand that the EIR is a legal document and can’t really be changed once submitted.  For example, Councilman Kriss Worthington of Berkeley was critical of the BRT system because he believed it should connect to the Berkeley Amtrak station down University Avenue.  Now, regardless of how you feel about adding a University Ave. section to BRT, because AC Transit did not study University Ave. in its EIR, it legally cannot study implementing it as an option now.  It would have to start a brand new EIR that included the University section, essentially starting all over.

Some will argue that BRT isn’t dead because the vote passed was a vote on a study of BRT and not the actual construction of it.  But because it’s a regional project, BRT needs a decent amount of consensus among the cities to be implemented.  Because Oakland City Council has endorsed the study of a full-build option and Berkeley has now rejected full-build in favor of no-build, if AC Transit went ahead and built the system as Oakland and Berkeley want, what would happen is that you would have dedicated lanes in Oakland along Telegraph Ave. until you reached the Berkeley border where it would switch to normal configuration from dedicated lanes to non-dedicated lanes.  This would also affect regular traffic because drivers would need to merge into one lane going each way on Telegraph once entering Oakland.  The result would be a less reliable and slower BRT in Berkeley where buses and cars would clump at the border and would cause ripple affects to the entire system, thus making the entire system less feasible.

Having said the above, there were several key issues that opponents used to fear monger and get their way.  The key issues were over parking and business along Telegraph. However, these and many other concerns over BRT are unfounded.

BRT is Consistent with the Passage of Measure G, the City’s Adopted Climate Action Plan and the Defeat of Measure KK

At the Berkeley City Council meeting, you would have thought half the city was up in arms over the proposed project.  However, this would be a miss-perception, as one intrepid public speaker pointed out during his public comment.  In 2008, Berkeley residents overwhelmingly rejected Measure KK, a city ballot initiative that would have required voter approval before any agency dedicate a street lane for higher-occupancy vehicles (i.e. buses).  But because of Measure KK’s thunderous defeat, the speaker pointed out it would be a mistake to construe the opposition in attendance as a true representation of the opinions of the city as a whole, and he would be right.

In 2006, Berkeley residents overwhelmingly approved Measure G, setting an 80% reduction target in greenhouse gasses.  Last year in 2009, the City Council approved Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan where a goal of the plan is to ensure “public transit, walking, cycling and other sustainable mobility modes are the primary modes of transportation by residents and visitors.”  BRT would have allowed Berkeley to achieve this goal and Telegraph Ave. is just the sort of corridor that should be tailored for use by transit-riders and pedestrians rather than private automobiles.

BRT Would Reduce Greenhouse Gasses

A better public transit system means more transit riders and fewer automobiles on the road.  With the projected number of 50,000 daily riders by 2025, BRT could eliminate 10,000 daily auto trips.  Not only does this help to mitigate the lower auto-capacity on Telegraph Ave., but it helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of private cars pushed into the atmosphere.  Improved transit that is faster and more reliable would encourage drivers to take the bus to jobs in Downtown Oakland and San Leandro and vice versa into Berkeley.

BRT Would Improve Conditions for Cyclists on Telegraph

One of the groups speaking in favor of BRT was the cyclist community.  They recognize the resulting reduction and calming of traffic conditions along the Telegraph corridor will allow for improved bike lanes with better bike access and rider safety, thus promoting an additional alternative to the automobile.

BRT Would Have Brought More Customers to Vendors

Opponents of BRT made grandiose arguments suggesting that BRT would kill businesses, especially the street vendors on a four block stretch of Telegraph between the UC Berkeley campus and Dwight Street.  They implied customers would not patron if there were no private automobiles.

I found this argument odd because as a former student of UC Berkeley, I can say that the primary patrons are 1) students and 2) those that walked or took the bus to Telegraph.  Very few people actually drive to Telegraph then park, largely because there isn’t any parking nearby already.  So the street vendors eager to suggest the death of their business as a result of BRT would have actually increased their customer base had BRT been implemented because a faster, more reliable transit system would encourage more people to use it.  That is, unless street vendors exist off the fuel exhaust of private automobiles.

Further, BRT would not have removed parking on Telegraph Ave. in this four-block area because there isn’t any parking to remove.  The only available parking on Telegraph itself is a few loading-zone areas that would have remained under Berkeley’s Staff LPA. The rest of the parking is in existing lot, garage or street parking on adjacent streets that would have remained unchanged under the plan.

BRT Could Spur Economic Development on Telegraph

While many opponents hailed BRT as the end of civilization in Berkeley as we know it, they failed to point to any tangible example of civilizations end as a result of BRT.  On the other side, however, almost every single proponent of the BRT project pointed to an example, either in the US or abroad, where BRT existed and actually improved the streetscape and local economies.  For example, a city like Cleveland, OH had implemented a similar BRT system connecting their downtown core to one of its universities.  The corridor they chose along Euclid Avenue was largely seen as an underutilized area.  But after BRT was built in 2008, at the height of the economic recession, the area experienced an economic boom of $3.3 billion in new developments and economic activity.

Also, a common example was down in the often transit-criticized city of Angels with Los Angeles’ Wilshire BRT project.  Compared to AC Transit’s project, LA’s Wilshire BRT project called for dedicated lanes along the curb of Wilshire Boulevard but only during peak commuter hours.  I bring this up because it was briefly suggested by Councilmember Kriss Worthington at the meeting on whether a “peak-hour” lane could be used instead of 24-hour dedicated lanes.  This, I personally don’t have too much of an issue with and would have supported, had the council been willing to actually look at anything more than a no-build option.  But they didn’t so… I guess it doesn’t really matter now.

Majority of Shoppers, Workers and Residents Don’t Drive Into Downtown.

A friend of mine made an interesting argument against BRT in an attempt to explain why councilmembers representing areas far from the BRT corridor would oppose it.  He suggested that residents in the hills and in North and West Berkeley would lose the most with BRT because they are more likely to drive into Downtown Berkeley and Telegraph, thus, would need readily available parking.  This is a good argument only if you can prove that the majority of customers in Downtown Berkeley drive in.  However, this isn’t the case.  In 2002, Berkeley City Council requested a UCB Dept. of Urban & Regional Planning studio study to look at this very issue of parking.  The study showed that over 60% of workers in Downtown Berkeley take non-auto modes of transportation and only 37% said they reach downtown by car.  Further, 70% of shoppers use non-auto to get to Downtown while only 20% drove.  In 2007, there was a second UCB study that confirmed the findings, showing 63% of visitors used non-auto modes of transportation to Downtown while only 34% use a private car.

The studio study determined the problem with parking shortages in Downtown Berkeley are in large part the result of visitors who stay in excess of parking limits, facilitated by broken meters and meter “feeding”.  While it is easy to say that this study focused on Downtown Berkeley vs. Telegraph Ave., the overall issue of parking, as addressed in this study, should show that eliminating parking is not a death blow to Berkeley businesses since most customers don’t drive to shop.

In the end, the Berkeley City Council chose to stick with a more auto-oriented Telegraph Avenue.  It is disappointing when a city that claims leadership in the fight against global warming and the use of alternative transportation and shown all the clear benefits of BRT; when given the option to truly lead by example would cave to the pressure of anti-development NIMBYs who just don’t want to build anything anywhere near anything.  Residents, in Berkeley and in the other cities that would be served by BRT, should be ashamed when a city like Los Angeles is showing more attention and progressive thinking towards public transportation than Berkeley.

———————————————————————————————————-

Reuben serves on the board of EBYD, is a Waterfront Commissioner for the City of Berkeley, and is a transit advocate and planning enthusiast.  EBYD has previously endorsed AC Transit’s East Bay BRT project.  The views and opinions expressed in this post are not official position of EBYD and is solely the opinion of its author.

EBYD endorses the following candidates and issues for the June 2010 ballot:

Propositions

Prop 14 - OPPOSE

Prop 15 - SUPPORT

Prop 16 - OPPOSE

Prop 17 - OPPOSE

Local Candidates

(Read Completed Candidate Questionnaires Submitted Before Meeting)

Alameda County Supervisor, District 3 - No Position

Alameda County Superior Court Judge - Victoria Kolakowski

Alameda County Democratic Central Committee -

Andrew Kelley, Edie Irons, Elizabeth Echols, Carl Jamaillo, Beverly Greene

Alameda County Board of Education - Joaquin Rivera

Congressional Representative, 9th CD - Barbara Lee

CA State Senate, SD 10 - Ellen Corbett

CA State Assembly, AD 16 –  Sandre Swanson

CA State Assembly, AD 14 - Nancy Skinner

Statewide Candidates

U.S. Senate – Barbara Boxer

Governor - Jerry Brown

Lt. Governor - No Position

Attorney General - Kamala Harris

Insurance Commissioner - Dave Jones

Secretary of State - Debra Bowen

Treasurer - Bill Lockyer

Superintendent of Public Instruction - No Position

Board of Equalization - Betty Yee

State Controller – John Chiang

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

EBYD Endorses the following candidates for office in California Young Democrats to be voted upon a the 2010 CYD Convention in Los Angeles

President – Alissa Ko

VP of Membership – Jennifer Longley

VP of Finance – Eddie Kirby

Secretary – Jonathan Goetz

Political Director – Julie Lind

Parliamentarian - Gabe Kearney

National Committeeman – Christopher Guererro

National Committeewoman – Erin Carlstrom

CBAY Regional Director – Jason Overman

*EBYD By-Laws state that a candidate must recieve 60% of votes cast to recieve endorsement. If this threshold is not met, EBYD takes “No Position” on that race*

Here is the council vote tally:

Rebecca Kaplan, At-Large – YES

Council President Jane Brunner, District 1 - NO

Patricia Kernighan, District 2 - YES

Nancy Nadel, District 3 – YES

Jean Quan, District 4 – YES

Ignacio De La Fuente, District 5 – NO

Desley Brooks, District 6 - YES

Larry Reid, District 7 – YES