Dear Editor,

Is it me or is there something the matter with the San Francisco Bay Guardian? Their recent election endorsements read almost like a laundry list given out by the state Democratic Party. Beginning with their endorsement of Phil Angelides for Governor, whose backers include the State Correctional Officer's Union, they endorse all the usual suspects. There were hardly any endorsements of Green Candidates, nor ever any mention at all of the Gubernatorial candidacy of Peter Camejo.

Today, I was shocked to read thier endorsement, albeit with reservations, of reelecting Tom Bates as Mayor of Berkeley. This is the same man who sold his soul to UC and the monied interests. His sudden shift in loyalties has been well documented on this side of the bay, and also in a recent Beyond Chron piece. Also, the Bay Guardian was dismissive of the growing grassroots mayoral campaign of Zelda Bronstein, who, I will add, is gaining recognition here in Berkeley.

But what is most unbelievable is the Bay Guardian's unqualified support, with no reservations at all, of Jerry Brown for Attorney General. As a former Oakland resident, let me remind you of a few things that this man did as Mayor.

During his watch Jerry Brown:

* Defended the shooting down of peaceful demonstrators at the Port of Oakland by Oakland Police.

* Aggressively supported the displacement of countless low and middle-income Oakland residents by the Real Estate interests.

* Allowed so-called "anti-terror" military exercises within Oakland City limits.

* Refused to meet with concerned citizen's groups at his office in City Hall. (Unless you had a lot of money.)

* Hardly ever attended City Council meetings, unless it was to push for something he was personally involved in.

* Supported the actions of a group of Oakland police known as the "Riders", who embarked on a brutal campaign of terrorizing West Oakland residents.

* Did nothing when the City Council shut down practically all of Oakland's Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.

* Attempted to force out the award winning Alice Arts Center from its downtown location in order to relocate his own failing "School for the Arts".

* Let city funds be squandered in subsidizing large redevelopment sprawl projects.

* And leaves in his wake a city with an ever-rising murder rate, while throwing up his hands and saying in effect- It's all Oakland's own fault.

There is much more I could list here, but suffice to say that the above record is not one of a defender of justice or human rights.

I also take exception to thier description of Brown as interesting and unpredictable. In reality, his actions as Oakland Mayor show him to be to be downright arrogant and duplicitous. It's as if he changes his loyalties as one would a suit of clothes. Of course, the argument will now be made that we have no choice here, that his opponent is far worse. But then, isn't that what the powers that be want us to do? It's almost as if every other November we are presented with two bottles of poison, one marked Republican and the other Democrat. The Republican bottle kills in ten seconds, the Democrat in ten minutes. With the Republican poison you get it over with quickly. But the Democrat poison acts more slowly, and while you may think that nothing is happening, it will kill you just the same. Speaking for myself, I choose not take any poison at all, thank you very much.

And just because Jerry Brown could support progressive causes does not mean that he will. Yes, I am indeed very much aware of political realities. And the reality of Brown's record as Oakland Mayor shows beyond any reasonable doubt that we can never put any trust or faith in this man. I prefer to vote FOR someone, not hold my nose and support one scumbag just because he's not quite as bad as the other scumbag.

Therefore, this year, I intend to cast my vote for Green and independant candidates who are not beholden to the Democrats or the monied interests.

As a once loyal reader and supporter of the Bay Guardian, I must express a profound and deep feeling of disappointment in thier choices.

Sincerely, John F . Davies Berkeley, California




Hi Paul:

I read your comment. I am publishing a book this fall on the response to Kelo and it is linked below. It may interest you.

I don't think opponents of Prop 90 realize WHY voters approve such measures. It is because they think the scrutiny regime, imposed by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish in 1937, has served them ill. As you may know, that allowed government nearly unlimited power over a large number of important facts, such as housing. I think public opinion now doesn't like the way government has treated those facts, and so they want power over those facts returned to the individual.

Prop 90 is a blunt instrument, but it reflects that sentiment. It simply cuts back on government discretion with respect to facts. And that is not the only area where it is occurring. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) eliminated sodomy laws. It apparently has nothing to do with property, but as was noted at the time, the Court simply abandoned the scrutiny regime in that case and used a different analysis. RLUIPA, the religious land uses act, also cuts back on government discretion with respect to facts.

One thing I don't think people notice about Prop 90 is that in saying "property" the proposition is not limited to real property. It can be extended to any property INTEREST, for example, it can be extended to changes in medical care laws. Constitutional law defines, for equal protection and due process purposes, "property" as "property interests" and extends them quite far, far beyond real property.

This is the most important thing which is not realized by critics of Prop 90. It really is a total assault on West Coast Hotel-style health and welfare regulation. The basis of the scrutiny regime is that government may affect facts if the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

Public opinion no longer likes that formulation. It wants the basis of the Constitution to be that law maintains important facts, such as housing, medical care, and so on.

The advocates of the scrutiny regime not only do NOT realize that public opinion has changed, these advocates have very POOR doctrinal arguments in support of the scrutiny regime. This is why they keep losing. It's very hard to argue that the scrutiny regime should keep control of medical care, for example, when 46 million people have no health care insurance.

In any event, I think you have to realize that the scrutiny regime is over. It's finished. We're living under a new doctrine.

Cordially yours,
John Ryskamp



Dear Editor,

Regarding your Prop 90 reticle - What we really need is a law to keep people from other states from putting things on our ballot. I believe that Montana is looking into this now regarding paid petition gatherers from other states.

Sincerely,

Terrie Frye


You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: rshaw@beyondchron.org
or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
415-771-1287 (fax)