https://foundsf.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Elliotrose&feedformat=atomFoundSF - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T06:25:18ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.1https://foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_West_Berkeley_Industrial_Park_Redevelopment_Project&diff=26624The West Berkeley Industrial Park Redevelopment Project2017-05-12T21:51:26Z<p>Elliotrose: Created page with "'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>''' <br> By ''Elliot Lewis'' {| style="color: black; background-color: #F5..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
By ''Elliot Lewis''<br />
<br />
{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"<br />
| colspan="2" | '''The West Berkeley Industrial Park redevelopment project was an initiative the Berkeley City Council first proposed in the 1960s which planned the demolition of a residential area in West Berkeley in order to create space for industry. This is the story of the nearly thirty year long struggle, using a wide variety of tactics, that community members led to successfully defeat this project. <br />
'''<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br />
<h4> Context </h4><br />
In his award winning book on the East Bay, American Babylon, Robert Self describes the industrial wartime production boom that occurred during World War II in the East Bay, and the accompanying efforts by business and civic leaders to maintain such growth in the postwar years through urban renewal and redevelopment efforts. These efforts would shape the social, political, and economic spaces of the Bay in the post war decades.[1] A tension that emerged at the heart of the discourse concerning the redevelopment of urban spaces was the different ways different actors conceived of these spaces. As Self poetically writes, for capitalists, “property can be conceived of as space that produces capital,” space that is structured and protected with legal boundaries, yet at the same time, “space is also a primary component of social imagination” providing the fertile ground for community growth.[2] Within this framework we can view the heated struggles that would emerge over redevelopment efforts in the postwar years throughout the Bay Area, from struggles in the Mission and Fillmore regions in San Francisco to the infamous “white flight” in Oakland. The city of Berkeley, often overlooked in such discussions due to its location in the shadow of its larger industrial neighbors, was rocked by the flows of capital into urban residential spaces.<br />
<br><br />
One of the defining issues of Berkeley city council politics during the three decades following the war regarded land use issues in West Berkeley over what would come to be known as the West Berkeley Industrial Park (WBIP) redevelopment project. Long time David Mundstock provides an extraordinary first hand account of the struggle over the WBIP during the 70’s, in a book he wrote and has published online [http://berkeleyinthe70s.homestead.com here]. This book goes into great detail concerning the legal and political minutia surrounding this fight, as well as various other aspects of Berkeley City Council politics in the 1970’s, and I would highly recommend this source for more information. The history Mundstock provides was essential to my research, and in many places, goes into greater depth than is appropriate here.<br />
<br><br />
The story of the WBIP begins in April of 1955 when the Berkeley City Council passed the Master Plan of Berkeley, a plan that aspired to guide the future of Berkeley for the next 20 years. This plan speaks of the need to balance “Conservation,” “New Building,” and “Rebuilding” in order to preserve the unique character and beauty of Berkeley while attempting “to secure for Berkeley her rightful place in the long range development of the San Francisco Bay Area.”[3] It is in this plan that a Special Industrial Zone is created between 6th St. in the east; 4th St. in the west; Camilia St. in the north; and Dwight Ave in the south.[4]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
[[Image:IndustrialParkImage1.png]]<br />
<br><br />
'''A plan for the Industrial Park from the Master Plan'''<br />
<br><br />
''Image: Berkeley Master Plan''<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
Even this early, before specific redevelopment plans materialized, local community members began organizing to oppose the rezoning in order to protect this residential area from the threat of industry.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
[[Image:IndustrialParkImage2.png]]<br />
<br><br />
'''West Berkeley Residential-Industrial Committee, “Save Your Property Flyer,” 1956'''<br />
<br><br />
''Image: David Mundstock's Personal Collection''<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
These early protests were fruitless, as plans for industrial development moved forward, and in 1963 the West Berkeley Industrial Park proposal was first formed by Republican mayor Wallace Johnson and the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce. This project proposed the demolition of the houses in an eight block region of the previously created Special Industrial Zone (between 4th street, 6th street, Cedar street, and University Ave.) by the Berkeley Redevelopment Agency (BRA) so that this land could be sold to industry at below market prices in order to keep Berkeley a competitive location for industry in Bay.[5] The project was approved unanimously by the City Council in 1967, prohibiting residential uses in the industrial park, and thereby planning to displace 229 people from 66 dwellings.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4> Development Begins </h4><br />
After applying for a seven million dollar loan from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the BRA began acquiring land and resettling residents of the zoned region. By August of 1970, residents living in and around the WBIP zone organized to form the Ocean View Committee (OVC), the name “Ocean View” being a historic designation of West Berkeley.[6] The goal of the OVC was not to destroy the project entirely, but was rather to convince the city council to shift the industrial park to the area west of 4th street, which was already industrial land, much of which was undeveloped. The Ocean View Committee argued this position brilliantly in an administrative complaint filed in 1971 against George Romney, the Secretary of the HUD at the time. They claimed that due to the housing shortage in Berkeley at the time, the cost of the project to taxpayers, and the ultimate private benefit to industry, the project would only be a cost to the people of Berkeley. They conclude, “The purpose of the Ocean View Committee is to save all homes not yet destroyed, and to secure federal and city assistance to rehabilitate our neighborhood, which has been partially blighted by the disastrous activities of the BRA.”[7]<br />
<br><br />
But in 1971, ignoring the complaints of the Ocean View Committee, the BRA demolished the first five houses in the new WBIP zone. This demolition didn’t occur without a fight, with dozens of protesters meeting the bulldozers. Ultimately three were arrested for civil disobedience.[8] For the next few years the project was stalled by the efforts of those on the OVC, which brought repeated complaints against the City Council, including a lawsuit in 1972 that forced the city to perform an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before proceeding, and the passing of a 1973 Neighborhood Protection Ordinance by the voters of Berkeley, that required public hearings before demolition permits could be issued. Part of the EIS concerned effects on local communities, and contained a study that interviewed locals, asking how they felt about different aspects of the project. The study found the majority of respondents felt the project would be a detriment to the city prior to “renewal.”[9] Yet ignoring the wishes of local communities, the BRA continued to push the project forward.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
[[Image:IndustrialParkImage3.png]]<br />
<br><br />
'''Avis Worthington, “Battle Of Ocean View Drags On” '''<br />
<br><br />
''Image: The Berkeley Barb, 1974''<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4> The Battle Over Demolition </h4><br />
In 1975, 15 houses were selected by the city to be considered for demolition. Several of the houses were in decrepit condition, due to fire damage and vandalism. However, some of this damage could perhaps have been avoided, if rehabilitation efforts had been initiated earlier on. As Mundstock points out in his critical history, “it was always to the BRA's advantage to let the houses deteriorate and be vandalized, because the image of decrepit, burnt-out shacks standing in the way of a tax-generating industrial park undercut the preservation movement.”[10] The city ultimately determined that 7 of the houses were “sub-standard,” which meant they could be demolished immediately, while 8 were merely “deficient,” meaning they could perhaps be rehabilitated. Yet possibly due to coercive pressure from the Mayor, the City Manager, who had the authority to sign demolition permits, ended up deciding to demolish all of the 15 houses anyways, effectively ignoring the inspection results. <br />
<br><br />
This is when some of the more remarkable actions by members of the OVC took place.<br />
David Mundstock volunteered to take legal responsibility for trying to stop the demolitions, hurriedly filing an injunction to have the immediate demolition stopped, until the houses were considered under the procedures established in the NPO passed in ‘73. The case went back and forth through various appellate courts, being flipped several times, before finally being stayed by the California Supreme Court. Even after Mundstock managed to protect those 15 houses, the BRA destroyed two other houses, receiving demolition permits the same morning of the razing to avoid public outcry. This led Mundstock to take further legal action, to protect all the houses within the industrial park zone, for at least some time. As Mundstock himself writes about the whole debacle: “In summary, I obtained nine separate judicial orders preventing demolitions in violation of the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, 3 from the Alameda County Superior Court, 2 from the Court of Appeals, and 4 from the California Supreme Court.”[11]<br />
<br><br />
It was the combination of such phenomenal efforts by individuals such as Mundstock, and others on the OVC that kept the WBIP from moving forward for so long. In a struggle such as this one, where the fight is about stopping development from occurring, an effective strategy of opposition can be to just delay the project, until it dies, due to a changing political and economical climate.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4> Ordinances P and Q </h4><br />
The next tremendous action by the Ocean View Committee was an effort in 1976 to push two voter ordinances, P and Q, which if passed would severely hamper the WBIP. Ordinance P would replace the independent BRA board with the City Council, which would open up greater opportunities for compromise and change on the project going forward, as the independence of the BRA had protected the project from being held accountable to the wishes of the people of Berkeley. Ordinance Q was a stronger measure that would amend the Industrial Park plan to protect residential housing in the area, reversing the City Council measure passed twenty years earlier that zoned the area as Special Industrial and return it to its residential zoning. Measure Q would further create a citizens group to work with the City Council to help plan industrial development in the area. In an astounding victory, both P and Q were passed - not by a small margin either. Mundstock notes the measures, “carried nearly every single precinct outside the hills, receiving an impressive mandate, 58-59% of the vote.”[12] This sent a strong message to the City Council, and provided unprecedented legal gains for those opposed to the project.<br />
<br><br />
However, the next few months would see an absurd turn of events, what Mundstock aptly describes as a “Kafkaesque” series of bureaucratic movements through the courts by the City Council in order to shut down measure Q. After P and Q were passed by public vote, the BRA sued the City Council, on the grounds that under state law only the City Council had responsibility over redevelopment, not the voters. However, measure P was upheld, thereby making the City Council and the BRA into one body. Yet the suit against Q was upheld, leading to the situation of the City Council suing itself as the BRA. This put Mundstock and the Ocean View Committee in an ethically difficult situation, because as Mundstock puts it: “If the Ocean View Committee now withdrew from the case, we would waive our right to later object or appeal. If we stayed in and actively participated, we ran the risk of legitimizing a collusive legal farce.”[13] In order to resolve the situation, Mundstock and the OVC tried to dismiss this case, on the grounds that the plaintiff and defendant cannot be one and the same. In a legal case, where the Ocean View Committee attempted to intervene in the case, to dismiss it, they argued:<br />
<blockquote><br />
“It is contrary to public policy for one person to control both sides of litigation...An action not founded upon an actual controversy between the parties to it, and brought for the purpose of securing a determination of a point of law, is collusive and will not be entertained... It necessarily follows that the same party cannot be plaintiff and defendant in the same lawsuit, even though he sue in one capacity and defend in another.”[14]<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br><br />
Yet, due to the significance of matter at hand, and the very intervening of the Ocean View Committee, which legitimized the trial (as Mundstock had feared) the dismissal was not allowed, and measure Q was killed. These legal proceedings were impossible for the Ocean View Committee to avoid, as absent this intervention, a direct appeal would not have been possible (as the Court would deem a failure to appear as a waiver of appeal rights), and the court’s decision would have stood by default.[15] Hence the proceedings were essentially a legal sham that used technical maneuvering within the law, to carry out the destruction of a voter passed ordinance without hope for appeal- an action that clearly defies the spirit of the law, and the democratic legal process.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4> The Death of The Industrial Park</h4><br />
In 1977, the Ocean View Committee formed a Homebuyers Association, in an attempt to lobby the City Council to put the houses in the industrial park zone on the market, and they achieved a compromise, which protected some residential property in the area, to be sold on the market. In 1978, the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association stepped in and pressed the City Council to consider the historical significance of the houses under consideration for demolition, further halting the project.[16] This exemplifies the astounding diversity of parties that came together to use different legal means to effectively halt this project for thirty years. From civil disobedience, to voter ordinances, to appealing to the housing shortage in Berkeley, and finally the consideration of historical value of threatened homes, those opposing the WBIP took every possible avenue available to demonstrate to the city the destruction that would follow if the project went through.<br />
<br><br />
After nearly 30 years of holds on the project, in 1979, the City was finally ready to sell a large portion of the industrial park to a company called ARA Laundry. However at the last minute, their efforts were scuttled by a brilliant act of investigative journalism, by Bill Wallace, for the Berkeley Barb, that revealed connections between the ARA and the mafia.[17]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
[[Image:IndustrialParkImage4.png]]<br />
<br><br />
''' "Do Bribes and Mobsters Make Good Neighbors?" by Bill Wallace<br />
<br><br />
''Image: The Berkeley Barb, 1979''<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
This article raised plenty of public outrage, and the Council decided not to go through with the deal. This would be the final deathblow for the West Berkeley Industrial Park Redevelopment Project, as the Council elected in 1979 would ultimately be opposed to the project. The immense stalling efforts of community opposition to the project had finally won out. <br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4> Conclusions</h4><br />
The history of the WBIP, and the OVC opposition to this project tells us much about strategies of resistance to the often destructive flows of capital through residential spaces. While each situation requires a different strategy, this case exemplifies the possibility of using the court system to push back against inconsiderate industrial development. However, just as much as the actions of the Ocean View Committee demonstrate the strength of the legal apparatus, the history of this struggle is also a reminder of the sometimes nefarious means by which those with power can abuse the court system to get what they want, as was clearly displayed in the overturning of voter passed ordinance Q. In the end, what allowed the struggle against the WBIP to prevail was the immense determination of all the community members involved. The persistent resistance, by those whose lives would be uprooted by the project, stalled development for thirty years, until the City Council, and the economy, no longer favored redevelopment. As Mundstock reflects on the success of the opposition: <br />
<br><br />
<blockquote><br />
“[The WBIP] had a kind of inertia going forward, even as its constituency dwindled to even less than the 1950s, when this was a republican project with a very conservative Republican city council majority, backed by the vast powers of the Chamber of Commerce. It was a different era, the project did not belong as something that continued on, but it had the power of inertia- something in motion, continues in motion, and that’s what it did. Lawsuit after lawsuit delayed it, but never killed it, and then it finally was killed, by a combination of factors, which included voters passing an initiative which said we want housing not the industrial park, a lack of a constituency for the industrial park, and a final attempt to sell a big block of land, which a great chronicle report Bill Wallace, exposed to be linked to the mafia. And that more than anything else was probably the death block, because if all they could do was sell land linked to the mafia, the council members supporting the industrial park essentially gave up, they surrendered.”[18]<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br><br />
The death of the WBIP would have a lasting legacy in Berkeley, precluding destructive industrial redevelopment initiatives in the years to come. While land use issues still remain a pertinent point of political conflict today, the history of postwar redevelopment efforts certainly left a scar on the name of redevelopment, necessitating more careful consideration by developers of just who they might be displacing.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
'''Notes:'''<br />
<br><br />
[1] Robert O. Self, American Babylon: Race and The Struggle For Postwar Oakland (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), 26.<br />
<br><br />
[2] Ibid, 18. <br />
<br><br />
[3] Berkeley Planning Comission, [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002094061;view=1up;seq=30 Berkeley Master Plan], in Hathi Trust Digital Library, 1955, (Accessed 15 December 2016), 2-18 <br />
[4] Berkeley Planning Commission, Berkeley Master Plan, 52<br />
<br><br />
[5] David Mundstock, Berkeley In The 70s: A History of Progressive Electoral Politics (Self-Published Online: 1985), [http://berkeleyinthe70s.homestead.com Chapter 9],(Accessed 15 December 2016).<br />
<br><br />
[6] Mundstock, Berkeley In The 70s, Chapter 9<br />
<br><br />
[7] Ocean View Committee vs. George Romney, Administrative Complaint, 1971, Box 1978.52, Berkeley Historical Society, 1.<br />
<br><br />
[8] Mundstock, Berkeley In The 70s, Chapter 9<br />
<br><br />
[9] Department of Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Impact Statement, 1973, Box 1978.52, Berkeley Historical Society, 100.<br />
<br><br />
[10] Mundstock Mundstock, Berkeley In The 70s, Chapter 9<br />
<br><br />
[11] Ibid.<br />
<br><br />
[12] Mundstock, Berkeley In The 70s, Chapter 10.<br />
<br><br />
[13] Mundstock, Berkeley In The 70s, Chapter 11. <br />
<br><br />
[14] Redevelopment Agency v. City of Berkeley 1978 Cal. App. 3d 158 (1978).<br />
<br><br />
[15] Mundstock, Berkeley In The 70s, Chapter 15<br />
<br><br />
[16] Ibid. <br />
<br><br />
[17] Bill Wallace, [http://voices.revealdigital.com/cgi-bin/independentvoices?a=d&d=BFBJFGD19790118&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN---------------1 “Do bribes and mobsters make good neighbors?”], The Berkeley Barb (1979), Independent Voices, (accessed 15 December 2016), 1-3.<br />
<br><br />
[18] Interview with David Mundstock by author.<br />
<br />
[[category:1960s]] [[category:1970s]] [[category:East Bay]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]] [[category:Housing]] [[category:redevelopment]]</div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:IndustrialParkImage4.png&diff=26623File:IndustrialParkImage4.png2017-05-12T20:52:31Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:IndustrialParkImage3.png&diff=26622File:IndustrialParkImage3.png2017-05-12T20:52:10Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:IndustrialParkImage2.png&diff=26621File:IndustrialParkImage2.png2017-05-12T20:51:50Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:IndustrialParkImage1.png&diff=26620File:IndustrialParkImage1.png2017-05-12T20:51:25Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=Berkeley%E2%80%99s_Establishment_of_a_Police_Review_Commission&diff=26478Berkeley’s Establishment of a Police Review Commission2017-04-25T01:26:05Z<p>Elliotrose: Created page with "'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>''' ''By Jennifer Andi'' <br> {| style="color: black; background-color: #..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br />
''By Jennifer Andi''<br />
<br><br />
<br />
{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"<br />
| colspan="2" | '''This article investigates the events leading up to the creation of the Berkeley Police Review Commission in 1973. Violence and conflict between the Berkeley police force and civilians in the 1960’s led activists and radicals to shift their efforts to more institutional political methods, such as the ballot measure forwarded in 1971 that called for community control of the police . After the defeat of the ’71 measure, a more moderate approach led to some success in 1973, with the creation of the first official community commission to oversee policing in Berkeley.'''<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br />
<h4> 1960’s: Activists Getting Fed up with Police Brutality </h4><br />
<br />
The 1960s in Berkeley was marked by a string of protest demonstrations emerging from the University, beginning with the Free Speech Movement in 1964, followed by anti-Vietnam War Protests and finishing the decade with the tumultuous public struggles for ‘People’s Park’ in 1969.[1] Violent suppression of such protests by the Berkeley police fostered a deep mistrust of the police among local activists and community members. <br />
<br><br />
Simultaneous to these campus centered struggles, African-Americans in South Berkeley, Oakland and nearby Richmond responded to violent police oppression through a variety of means including the formation of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. Bobby Seale was the founding chairman of the Black Panther Party (BPP), created in 1966 to provide oversight and protection for Black people in the face of police violence. He wrote, “During those hard core late 1960s racist, fascist times, we took a big chance with our lives patrolling the police. It was a time of rampant vicious police brutality and murder of Black people by police that was 10 times worse than today. We had declared that the racist police occupy our community like foreign troops occupy territory.” Police and government strove to squash the BPP, eventually making new laws to prevent them from patrolling the police.[2]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4> 1970-71, A New Strategy Emerges: Electoral Attempt for Community Control of Police </h4><br />
Seeing the government change laws to eradicate the BPP’s self-defense strategy led Seale to begin organizing for a ballot measure that would give the community control of the police.[3] The BPP found common ground with white activists who had their own struggles with the Berkeley Police Department, and a joint effort to gain community control of the police forces emerged.<br />
<br><br />
The Committee to Combat Fascism, a group affiliated with the Black Panthers, wrote the 1971 Community Control of Police Initiative in Berkeley, calling for the division of Berkeley’s police force into three distinct sections, corresponding to already existing geographical and social distinctions [(1) predominantly Black West Berkeley, (2) predominantly White Berkeley Hills, and (3) university and downtown business district), as well as community oversight of the police. The proposal required that officers live within the department neighborhood of their employment, and called for the creation of three fifteen-member councils and a five-member commission to govern the three departments. Those who supported the measure believed that residence requirements for officers, and local control by citizen commissions would alleviate tensions in the city and foster sensitivity between the officers and community.[4] The BPP’s control of police campaign launched similar initiatives in four different cities in the Bay Area: San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond and Berkeley.[5] Shortly after the referendum was written, Seale was arrested, and the baton was passed to community organizers to collect the needed signatures to get it on the ballot.[6] The strong coalition across racial and ethnic groups in Berkeley worked together to successfully acquire the necessary number of signatures, while the other three cities were unable to gain enough support.[7]<br />
<br><br />
According to long time Berkeley resident and civil rights attorney Jim Chanin, at this time social movements started to see the limitations of protest demonstrations: “It seemed like doing the same thing over and over again, and police response was so violent in response to some demonstrations it led activists, including the BPP, to seek political influence and turn to elections as a vehicle for social change.”[8] Articles in local left newspapers such as the Berkeley Tribe made this transition evident: “It looks like the pigs are going to feel the wrath of the community again. This time, the approach is a little more subtle than usual. Over 15,000 registered voters in Berkeley have signed the Community Control of Police petition.” [9]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
[[Image:BerkeleyPoliceCommissionPhoto.png]]<br />
<br><br />
'''It's your choice - policemen or pigs? Vote for community control of police.'''<br />
<br><br />
''Image: The Media Project''<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
1970 opened a succession of initiative campaigns spanning the decade. Protesters became citizen lawmakers. The 1971 “Community Control of Police” Initiative was one of the first, although ultimately unsuccessful, attempts of Berkeley activists to write changes to the laws and policies that shaped their city. [11]<br />
<br><br />
<h4> Political Warfare: The 1971 Community Control of Police Initiative </h4><br />
The police initiative was controversial. While it gained strong support from politically radical African American and New Left student populations, it garnered sharp criticism from conservatives, business owners, and law enforcement agents.[12] New Left radicals in Berkeley frequently clashed with a repressive police force that was concerned with suppressing the political movement to transform the status quo and institute a more democratic government. A 1970 Berkeley Tribe article exhibits well the revolutionary aspirations of those in favor of the initiative- to them, the initiative represented a strategy of using politically legitimate means, to secure space for more radical community activism, and countercultural lifestyles:<br />
<br><br />
<blockquote><br />
Our free way of life has been under systematic attack all this year. The police no longer simply hassle us on the Avenue or attack our demonstrations. They have begun full-scale counter-insurgency to destroy radicalism in Berkeley. They deliberately raid the Free Clinic, Free Church and Runaway Center, attempting to destroy the “permissive liberals” who support our revolutionary community…In pursuing this crackdown, the police have had to expose their brutal nature more and more to the community…In the issue of Community Control of Police we have the chance for a people’s counter-offensive against the occupying army. We are raising a revolutionary question in a “legitimate” arena which large numbers of Berkeley citizens relate to, the arena of electoral politics. We are suggesting an alternative which is both visionary and practical…Above all, we have a chance to unite our whole community; liberals, freeks and revolutionaries, blacks and whites, young and old, around a common understanding of the police and the need for community control in all matters. This unity has been missing at least since People’s Park among whites… In order to achieve unity, we have to present a clear alternative to the police propaganda printed every day in the GAZETTE and also answer the sincere questions many people have about our proposed police control machinery.[13]<br />
<br><br />
We are not asking for a small act like the casting of a “yes” vote’ we are asking people to take charge of their own destinies directly. This is the most contagious meaning of community control. For, after all, the passage of this referendum will only erect a small barrier against the oppressor.[14]<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br><br />
A debate raged in Berkeley between those in favor of the initiative, and those critical of the measure, who worried about the supposedly “divisive” and dangerous results that would follow from such reform. Echoing the debate surrounding Affirmative Action initiatives, A bipartisan group called One Berkeley Community opposed the initiative on the grounds that it was “racially divisive, a step backward by a city that pioneered in total integration of its schools.” Other opposition groups said that the plan would leave Berkeley with an “inferior police force controlled by radicals,” and that if it passed, the 214-member police force would quit because 85 percent lived outside of the district.[15] Radicals were unfazed by the prospect of losing a majority of the current police force, claiming “This would only further expose the police for what they are; an independent armed force who wants Police Control of the Community.”[16]<br />
<br><br />
Another Berkeley Tribe article from 1970 attacks both police propaganda and passive liberals:<br />
<blockquote><br />
The second point of police propaganda is that Berkeley would be racially segregated under this plan. But it is the present system which causes the City to be segregated by communities. The result is that the black community is patrolled by a mainly white police force (there are only 18 blacks out of 272 Berkeley police in a city which is one-third black). Increasingly blacks are refusing to join a police force controlled by their oppressors, and the only alternative to shoot- outs is a police force in the black community chosen by the people. The police control idea starts from the reality of segregation instead of the false “integration” concept which hides the fact of racist domination.[17]<br />
<br><br />
Chronicle – style liberals want to preserve the police to guard the establishment to which they belong. At best they put forward the notion of a police review board or ombudsman to correct “abuses” in police behavior. These proposals will gain respectability in the coming year as “moderate alternatives” to the “radical” idea of Community Control. We will have to argue with many people that a “review mechanism” is impossible when operated under the same system which establishes the police. It can only result in officials reviewing themselves and police policing themselves.[18]<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br><br />
Shortly before the election, Reverend Richard York, a Pastor of the Berkeley Free Church drafted a press release on April 2, 1971, issuing a scathing criticism of the Berkeley Police. He stated that the Berkeley Police Department had forced an illegal entry and conducted an illegal search of the church in February of 1970, and that three officers beat Rev. York unprovoked in July of 1970. He also criticized attempts by the Berkeley City government and police force to discredit the Free Church and the united cause with the April Coalition, going on to discuss the arrest of Father Boylan and accusations of voter fraud. Rev. York renewed his commitment to “eliminate this kind of rank political intimidation and police state behavior by passing the Community Control of Police amendment on April 6, [1971].”[19]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4>1971: Community Control of Police Initiative is Defeated </h4><br />
<br><br />
The Community Control of Police Initiative failed on April 6, 1971, garnering only 16,144 votes in favor against 33,726 votes opposed.[20] In the wake of the defeat, former City Councilman and newly elected Mayor Warren Widener announced his own plan for “a progressive police department for the entire city.”[21] Warren’s plan retained some of the failed community control specifics, such as a residency requirement, and elected board of police commissioners, but kept the city united instead of dividing it into three precincts.[22] Loni Hancock, who was the only woman elected to the Berkeley City Council in the ’71 election,[23] commented on the failed initiative, “many people liked the idea of community control but had problems with that particular proposal.”[24]<br />
<br><br />
Reflecting on the 1971 police initiative 45 years later, Jim Chanin believes it failed in large part due to divisiveness. It called for physically dividing jurisdictions of the Berkeley Police Department around class and racial lines, and it caused an uproar of political division among supporters and opponents. The initiative was hostilely received, and the Black community voted against it overwhelmingly. Chanin hesitated to say he knew for certain, but got the impression that Black citizens feared that they would be harassed in neighboring jurisdictions and would become officially relegated to their own neighborhoods.[25]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4>1972-73: A New Attempt at Police Accountability and Oversight</h4><br />
<br><br />
In 1972, organizers regrouped and formed the Police Initiatives Committee. Jim Chanin was one of two campaign coordinators and they applied lessons learned from the failed 1971 Police Initiative in an effort to draft something with at least some oversight principles that could pass. “The idea was cutting edge, but it wasn’t radical,” Chanin said.[26]<br />
<br><br />
The committee focused on inclusiveness over radicalism and built a coalition of support among Black Panther Party, McGovern, Liberal Democrats, Leftists, Progressives, African Americans, and others. The major compromise in the pursuit of the ’73 initiatives compared to the original ’71 initiative, was keeping Berkeley intact as one jurisdiction.[27]<br />
<br><br />
Another strategy shift was to put multiple smaller initiatives on the ballot, rather than trying to push one comprehensive initiative with multiple parts. The initiative for weapons regulations to demilitarize Berkeley PD lost by a small margin. The initiative for a residency requirement mandating that all Berkeley police officers live within the city failed, and residency requirements have since been deemed unconstitutional. The Initiative for the Mutual Aid Ordinance passed, requiring every single mutual aid pact that is made between Berkeley and other law enforcement agencies to be listed and voted in by City Council every year. But the main success from their strategy was the passing of the initiative for a Police Review Commission.[28]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4>Berkeley Police Review Commission: Obstacles, Successes, and Future</h4><br />
In the immediate aftermath of the successful initiative, there were obstacles to the implementation of the commission. The legality of the initiative was questioned because it was written as an ordinance instead of a charter amendment, and a typewriter error omitted a line of text from the ordinance. The PRC had to sue to uphold the initiative, and to demonstrate the intent for each City Council member to appoint one commissioner, as was specified in the line of text that was omitted. Jim Chanin was a commissioner on the first Police Review Commission (PRC) and ultimately served as a commissioner from 1973-77, and 1979-80. The City Manager at the time was supportive of the PRC in offering to reinstate portions of the ordinance, as well as providing a budget and an office for the PRC .[29]<br />
<br><br />
Many feel PRC in its early years was successful in holding the police accountable, and in implementing policies such as hostage negotiation instead of SWAT team extraction. Over time, and with the change of people in power, the City government began to limit PRC’s rights and power.[30]<br />
<br><br />
Beginning in the 1990s, public critique of the PRC’s ability to deliver on its mission of ensuring police accountability has grown. Matthew Arnatz’s 2002 article on the 30th anniversary of the PRC exhibits one such critical perspective on the matter: <br />
<blockquote><br />
Today’s Berkeley Police Department bears little resemblance to the force that fired on People’s Park protesters in 1969 and prompted voters to approve one of the nation’s first citizen review commissions four years later. …But for the Police Review Commission—which spearheaded those reforms and celebrated its 30th anniversary Thursday—little has changed. It’s still fighting for relevance and still steeped in controversy. “It’s a biased venue that does a disservice to the community,” said Randolph Files, president of the Berkeley Police Association— which has considered the PRC to be a knee-jerk anti-cop panel since its inception. Increasingly, though, the sharpest criticisms have come from advocates for the accused, who argue that the commission has lost its activist zeal and retreated from the community whose support it needs to remain relevant. “[The PRC] isn’t loved by the bureaucracy, so if it’s not loved by the people, I don’t see them having a 40th anniversary,” said Andrea Pritchett of Copwatch, an independent organization that monitors alleged police misconduct. … “It’s only as strong as the commitment and energy of the commissioners,” said Osha Neuman, who served from 1984-1992. … Still, when it comes to actual complaints against officers, the PRC’s findings carry little weight. No one interviewed could recall a case when an officer was fired or disciplined as the result of a commission finding. … A 2002 California Court of Appeals ruling further eroded the commission’s disciplinary power by mandating that cities with citizen review commissions set up appeal bodies for officers seeking to strike sustained allegations from their record. According to commissioners, since the process started last year, the three-person appeal board selected by then-City Manager Weldon Rucker has overturned nearly every commission finding against officers. “I’m astounded by their decisions. It’s ridiculous,” said Commissioner David Ritchie. … “If I had a serious complaint, I wouldn’t go to the PRC,” Prichett said. “Often you’re left to deal with the bureaucracy and present your case by your lonesome, and if you lose, it hurts your court case.” She said that, unlike previous boards, current commissioners aren’t hitting the streets to promote their activities or monitor police conduct. Commissioners past and present disagree, saying the PRC has provided an invaluable outlet for police-community dialog that has improved policing in the city and help Berkeley steer clear of the expensive misconduct suits that have plagued Oakland and San Francisco.[31]<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
Anderson Lanham’s 2016 article in the Daily Cal discusses some of the issues the PRC faces today :<br />
<blockquote><br />
“The Police Review Commission in Berkeley was designed to oversee the Berkeley Police Department, to hold its officers accountable for their actions and to act as a liaison between the department and the community. But at a time when police violence and oversight has become the subject of ever-increasing controversy across the nation, many in Berkeley — and in the commission itself — feel that the PRC is unable to adequately address today’s foremost police issues. “I demand accountability from the police department,” said Police Review Commissioner Ayelet Waldman during a PRC meeting, adding that such accountability is unachievable given the powerlessness of the commission. “To participate in a system that appeases rather than being effective, that gives the illusion of justice when no justice is being attained, then that is worse than not participating.” According to Berkeley City Councilmember Kriss Worthington, one consequence of this lack of justice is the fact that some civil rights lawyers in Berkeley explicitly tell their clients not to take their complaints against the police to the PRC. Civil rights lawyer James Chanin, who is also a founding member of the PRC, said the commission’s actions are evidence of its ineffectiveness… The PRC is currently facing issues operating within state law and city law, which are both restrictive regarding disclosing police records. PRC Commissioner George Lippman credits this lack of access to the enormous lobbying power of the police association… “I want a robust and important (Board of Inquiry),” Waldman said. “If we can achieve that within this system or within this time frame — making sure that the chief considers the (board’s) reports in his decision — then (I support conducting such inquiries). But if we can’t do that, I think that continuing this process is a disservice to the community.”[32]<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br><br />
At the time of this article (2017) Berkeley PRC is still operating in Berkeley, and other independent organizations such as [http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Berkeley_Copwatch Copwatch] are contributing to the effort of holding police accountable.[33] On the national front, Black Lives Matter has taken issues of police brutality and accountability back to the streets in the form of widespread protests and calls for reform.The heightened tensions between police and communities of color have brought discussions about the role of community review back on the table. The opportunity appears ripe for the formation of new coalitions to push forward radical change in policing.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
[1] David D. Schmidt, "Two Case Studies." ''Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution'', (Philadelphia, Temple <br />
UP, 1989). <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[2] Bobby Seale,"[http://sfbayview.com/2015/08/bobby-seale-community-control-of-police-was-on-the- berkeley-ballot-in-1969/ Bobby Seale: Community Control of Police Was on the Berkeley Ballot in 1969,]" San Francisco Bay View, 13 Aug. 2015, (accessed 6 Dec. 2016). <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[3] Seale," Bobby Seale: Community Control of Police Was on the Berkeley Ballot in 1969." <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[4] Tim Reiterman, "[http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/berkeley-to-vote-on-splitting-police-department-radical-groups-support-plan/ Berkeley To Vote On Splitting Police Department; Radical Groups Support Plan,]" Cielodrive.com, 5 Mar.1971, (accessed 08 Dec. 2016). <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[5][http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Panthpol.jpg Panthpol]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[6] Seale," Bobby Seale: Community Control of Police Was on the Berkeley Ballot in 1969." <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[7] Seale," Bobby Seale: Community Control of Police Was on the Berkeley Ballot in 1969." <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[8] Interview with Jim Chanin by Jennifer Andi, November 11, 2016. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[9] Berkeley National Committee to Combat Fascism, "Community Control," Berkeley Tribe, 21 July 1970, 2. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[10] The Media Project, “[http://www.docspopuli.org/AOUON_appraisalcat/detail.np/detail-27.html It’s your choice – policemen or pigs? Vote for community control of police,]” (1971), AOUON Archive,(Accessed 26, Sep. 2016) <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[11] Schmidt, "Two Case Studies." Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[12] Reiterman, "Berkeley To Vote On Splitting Police Department; Radical Groups Support Plan." <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[13] Tom Hayden, "N.C.C.F.,” Berkeley Tribe, 2 Oct. 1970, 12-13. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[14] Hayden, "N.C.C.F.” <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[15] Reiterman, "Berkeley To Vote On Splitting Police Department; Radical Groups Support Plan." <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[16] Hayden, "N.C.C.F.” <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[17] Hayden, "N.C.C.F.” <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[18] Hayden, "N.C.C.F.” <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[19] Rev. Richard York, Statement of the Rev. Richard York, Pastor of the Berkeley Free Church. (2 Apr. 1971), Online <br />
Archive of California, (accessed 8 Dec. 2016). <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[20] David Mundstock, “[http://berkeleycitizensaction.org/?page_id=379 Chapter 2 – The 1971 Election and the April Coalition,]” Berkeley Citizens Action, (Accessed 5 Oct. 2016). <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[21] Mundstock, “Chapter 2 – The 1971 Election and the April Coalition.” <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[22] Charlie Davis, "Countin' on Warren Widener," ''Berkeley Barb'', 9 Apr. 1971, 2&8 <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[23] Mundstock, “Chapter 2 – The 1971 Election and the April Coalition.” <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[24] Davis, "Countin' on Warren Widener.” <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[25] Interview with Jim Chanin by Jennifer Andi, November 11, 2016. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[26] Interview with Jim Chanin by Jennifer Andi, November 11, 2016. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[27] Interview with Jim Chanin by Jennifer Andi, November 11, 2016. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[28] Interview with Jim Chanin by Jennifer Andi, November 11, 2016. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[29] Interview with Jim Chanin by Jennifer Andi, November 11, 2016. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[30] Interview with Jim Chanin by Jennifer Andi, November 11, 2016<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[31] Matthew Artz, "[http://www.berkeleycitizen.org/civic/police2.htm Police Commission Marks 30 Years of Controversy,]" ''Berkeley Daily Planet'', 2 Dec. 2002, (accessed 11 Nov. 2016).<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[32] Anderson Lanham "[http://www.dailycal.org/2016/07/24/policing-the-police/ Policing the Police,]" ''The Daily Californian'', 24 July 2016, (Accessed 10 Nov. 2016). [33] (Insert hyperlink to possible Copwatch article)<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[[category:1960s]] [[category:1970s]] [[category:2000s]] [[category:2010s]] [[category:East Bay]] [[category: Bay Area Social Movements]]</div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:BerkeleyPoliceCommissionPhoto.png&diff=26467File:BerkeleyPoliceCommissionPhoto.png2017-04-25T00:57:47Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:BerkeleyPoliceReviewCommission1.png&diff=26464File:BerkeleyPoliceReviewCommission1.png2017-04-25T00:48:35Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=Berkeley_Tenants_Union_in_the_1970s&diff=26452Berkeley Tenants Union in the 1970s2017-04-25T00:28:51Z<p>Elliotrose: Created page with "'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>''' ''by Justin Germain'' {| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br />
''by Justin Germain''<br />
<br />
{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"<br />
| colspan="2" | '''Established in late 1969, the Berkeley Tenants Union, the first of its kind in the area, aimed to organize low-income tenants to protest evictions, rent increases, and poor housing conditions throughout Berkeley. At the same time, the tenants union formed strong coalitions with other activist groups in the hopes of attaining community control over living space. While unsuccessful in fulfilling their revolutionary desires, the Berkeley Tenants Union drastically increased tenants’ political power and put housing reform at the forefront of local public discussion.'''<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
[[Image:TenantsUnionPhoto1.png]]<br />
<br><br />
''' ''Tenants Rising'' V.1:7, the official biweekly newspaper of the Berkeley Tenants Union''' <br><br />
''Image: Bancroft Library'' <br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:TenantsUnionPhoto2.png]]<br />
<br><br />
'''November 13, 1969 protest at the National Association of Real Estate Board’s annual convention.''' <br><br />
''Image: Tenants Rising V.1:7, Bancroft Library'' <br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
Scribbled on a 1969 questionnaire distributed by the Berkeley Tenants Union, an East Berkeley mother wrote that she was a “divorcee, [had] two small children, part time job, and must sublet the two rooms to live in the house…my conscience hurts - the landlord’s does not.”[1] Amidst the rapid social changes of the late 1960s, San Francisco Bay Area residents began to speak out against the economic exploitation of low-income communities through rising rents and police-enforced evictions. Yet this was no easy task; individuals and their families found it nearly impossible to sway wealthy, seemingly unconscionable landlords who were intent on optimizing profits. Berkeley residents were the first in the Bay Area to organize for tenants’ economic rights through the creation of the Berkeley Tenants Union (BTU) in 1969. The BTU aimed to “become the collective bargaining agent for tenants and to be recognized by landlords as such” in an age with little organizing around housing or neighborhood issues.[2] The organization’s goals went beyond negotiations however, as they aspired more broadly to use the tenants’ union to give people absolute control over the space in which they lived. These revolutionary ideals guided the BTU throughout its first ten years of existence and influenced Berkeley residents’ views towards housing for decades. It did not, however, emerge out of a vacuum; tenant-landlord tension had been skyrocketing across the country for years.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4> Context </h4><br />
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the United States was in the middle of a colossal urban housing crisis. At the time, twenty-six percent of all American housing was considered downtrodden or lacking in appropriate sanitary facilities. Even with these abhorrent conditions, property values increased twelve percent annually (to landlords’ joy), with the value of high density Berkeley housing inflating at an even faster pace. Yet 70 million Americans (including the majority of people living in cities) were tenants, which typically meant that they were stuck in deteriorating housing that cost more and more to live in with each passing month.[3] Although tenants had protested unfair payments and conditions by collectively withholding their rents in previous decades, the frequency of rent strikes ballooned in the mid-1960s. Myron Moskovitz, one of the former attorneys for the Berkeley rent control movement in the mid-1970s, attributed this dramatic increase to the popularity of community organizing in the consumer, environmental, and anti-war movements. One of the most common ways to channel this spirit of mobilization against exploitative landlords were tenant unions: community groups that used collective bargaining tactics to ensure tenants’ rights were respected. The first tenant unions emerged in Chicago in 1966 and spread to 29 different cities by 1969.[4]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
The East Bay became a bulwark of tenants’ rights activism. While San Francisco would not experience [[Tenants Movement 1977-1979|mass tenant organizing]] until the late 1970s, Berkeley residents organized on one of the nation’s largest scales a decade earlier. Some structural factors point to this. The city classified two-thirds of all Berkeley households (two-thirds of which were rentals) as “low to moderate” income.[5] Furthermore, according to a 1973 housing survey, over 6,000 Berkeley units required “substantial repairs, major rehabilitation or replacement.”[6] One group of renters got so fed up with the downtrodden state of their rental that they left a dead cow in their common hallway to protest the lack of proper fire exits. Landlords exploited conditions like these to earn more revenue, even though rental payments in Berkeley only garnered approximately 8% profit on average.[7] In such a state, the Berkeley City Council initiated reforms to make housing more affordable, especially for low-income tenants. Housing was even named as the Berkeley Planning Commission’s highest priority in 1972. One of the Council’s most innovative reforms was the 1973 Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, which allocated a proportion of new housing for low and moderate-income families.[8] Yet the resolution’s most notable feature was its goal to “revise the Master Plan with neighborhood participation in development decisions.”[9] This was a direct response to the mass, tenant-based organizing that had captured the city’s attention during the preceding four years. The community’s desire to gain political control over housing development emerged from the dedicated campaigning of the Berkeley Tenants Union.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4>Formation of the BTU</h4><br />
“Landlords are thieves,” exclaimed a writer for Tenants Rising, the Berkeley Tenants Union’s biweekly newsletter, “but their robbery is legal.”[10] Virulent hostility toward landlords was only one driving factor behind the BTU’s formation. Berkeley residents created the union at an August 30, 1969 Gathering of the Tribes “to halt the systematic rent increases which have plagued this community over the past years.”[11] Who originally founded the BTU is a question that has historically been up for debate. According to Berkeley Rent Board Commissioner Katherine Harr, “I’ve met at least 20 people who have claimed to have founded it.”[12] Yet what all the original members of the BTU shared was the drive not to just be a collective bargaining group for tenants, but to be the only one in Berkeley. Although the BTU would become the largest and most effective tenants union in the city, it did not achieve this lofty goal. The BTU primarily focused its efforts in East Berkeley and near the University of California campus, while TORCH, a similar yet smaller tenants union, organized in West and South Berkeley (primarily for black and Chicano communities).[13] Garnering community support for BTU and TORCH was not a very difficult task. The organizing spirit left over from the Free Speech Movement and local antiwar activism had formed a coalition of students, minorities, and progressives eager to get involved. More importantly, the People’s Park Protests in April and May 1969 sparked a newfound interest in housing issues and challenged existing concepts of property rights. Only a few months later did the BTU begin reaching out to the public for support and involvement.[14] What made the BTU distinct was its hardline demeanor towards their strike pledge. “To be a member of BTU, you have to sign a piece of paper,” explained Harr, now the secretary of the Berkeley Tenants Union, “that says you pledge to uphold our mission.”[15] In late 1969, that mission included agreeing to withhold rent once 2000 other members agreed to begin a rent strike. Although some members believed that a strike pledge was worthless, the BTU insisted that these contracts helped to legitimize their collective action in the eyes of profit-hungry landlords.[16] Planning a city-wide rent strike would soon become the focal point of BTU’s organizing throughout late 1969 and early 1970.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4>Strategy and the Rent Strike</h4><br />
On September 11, 1969, the Berkeley Tenants Union held a public meeting for concerned citizens to help structure the organization during its first full month of operation. Tenants and organizers decided that they would “intensively organize on a block-by-block basis for a month,…supply tenants in their neighborhoods with information…[and] encourage them to get together to discuss the issues of a strike, escrow funds, membership requirements, tactics, etc.”[17] They scheduled their next “mass meeting” for October 14th to decide whether to change their mobilization strategy. In the meantime, they held weekly meetings (often recording head counts of up to 100 people) to arrange smaller, day-to-day tasks.[18] By the October meeting, the BTU had received more support than they could have ever imagined. 125 organizers in six different municipal regions hit the streets to canvass residents while almost 1,000 tenants attended the October restructuring meeting to voice their opinion about “membership criteria, minimal demands, and the structure of the Berkeley Tenants Union.”[19] In order to make the BTU as accessible as possible, meeting attendees decided that any tenant could join the union, but could only vote on important decisions if they agreed to sign the strike pledge. Also designed for accessibility, Tenants Rising’s bold, obscene headlines and full-page comics (portraying landlords as grotesque monsters) helped to expand their membership in creative ways.[20] With such immediate support, the possibility of a large-scale rent strike became increasingly likely. Other Berkeley residents felt similarly. In late September, University of California students picketed local apartments in support of a small rent strike against the Values, Inc. property management company due to their decision to increase rents by 33%.[21] As the new decade creeped closer, more and more tenants seemed willing to organize on a mass scale to defend their economic rights. <br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
[[Image:TenantsUnionPhoto3.png]]<br />
<br><br />
'''Flyer for the Berkeley Tenants Union’s mass meeting on October 14, 1969''' <br><br />
''Image: Tenants Rising, V.1:3, Bancroft Library'' <br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
[[Image:TenantsUnionPhoto4.png]]<br />
<br><br />
'''“Tenants Toons” portrayed landlords as hideous monsters in Tenants Rising''' <br><br />
''Image: Tenants Rising, V.1:8, Bancroft Library'' <br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
Accordingly, BTU’s main focus during the first quarter of 1970 was organizing a citywide rent strike. By that year, Berkeley’s vacancy rate was at a paltry 3.6%, and more than half of the city’s rentals had been occupied for under a year. While the city formed a Rental Housing Committee to investigate tenant-landlord disputes, the BTU decided to pursue much more radical measures. On January 3, 1970, the front page headline of Tenants Rising made a bold announcement: “RENT STRIKE PROJECTED FEBRUARY 1.”[22] At the time, the BTU only had 600 members who had signed the strike pledge. The voting committee had chosen to abandon the requisite 2000 pledges needed to launch a mass strike in favor of a system based on tenant-to-landlord ratios. With this in mind, the BTU decided to go forward with the rent strike, yet it ended up happening on a much smaller scale than initially planned. Around five hundred units withheld their rents until mid-March to varying degrees of success. Some units received better rental agreements while one unit was actually able to buy the property from their landlord.[23] It did not revolutionize property ownership throughout Berkeley, but it definitely provided more agency to at least some struggling tenants.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
While the rent strike was the BTU’s “top priority aim….since the beginning,” the tenants union had notable success in preventing unfair evictions and rent increases. The BTU’s initial targets were “large realty and management companies” because they gained the most through rampant speculation and widespread tenant exploitation.[24] One of the first firms that the BTU campaigned against was the Kobos Investment Company in November 1969. The landlord group had evicted tenants for the sole purpose of putting new dishwashers in all of their apartments (and raise the rent by $60 - $75 in the process). The BTU organized approximately three-quarters of Kobos’ tenants on their Wheeler Street property and demanded a repeal of the evictions, a 50% decrease in rents, and recognition of the BTU as the building’s collective bargaining organization. On November 5, 1969, BTU and the Kobos tenants marched to the main office of the Golden Gate Management Company (which oversaw Kobos and 500 Berkeley units in total) with their demands in hand.[25] Two days later, Kobos withdrew the evictions and began negotiating with the BTU about collective bargaining recognition. A smattering of other successes included lowering rents for a complex on Dwight Avenue by $30-$40 per month, blocking an eviction threat by San Francisco Federal Savings for tenants living on Colby Street, and mobilizing over 125 units under Golden Gate Management’s oversight.[26] Community organizing, however, was just one branch of BTU advocacy, they also dedicated substantial time and effort toward implementing a citywide policy of rent control in the early 1970s.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
[[Image:TenantsUnionPhoto5.png]]<br />
<br><br />
'''November 1969 BTU protest against Golden Gate Management Company at the University of California, Berkeley''' <br><br />
''Image: Tenants Rising, V.1:6, Bancroft Library'' <br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4> The Fight for Rent Control </h4><br />
The Berkeley Tenants Union’s involvement in the fight for rent control lasted well into the 1980s. Due to years of coalition-style organizing by the BTU, the University of California’s Tenant Action Project, and the April Coalition (a progressive local political slate), Berkeley residents passed a strong rent control initiative in June 1972. According to regional planner Pierre Clavel, “it established base rents, rolled back to their August 1971 levels,….applied to all private rentals for housing….[and] regulated evictions.”[27] The legislative success even spurred rent control supporters to run housing reform candidates for City Council in the January 1973 election. Unfortunately, this victory was short-lived. Rent control opponents filed a lawsuit against the initiative, which made its way to the California Supreme Court in 1976. In Birkenfeld v. the City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, the court ruled that Berkeley’s rent control law was unconstitutional because its “cumbersome rent adjustment procedures….would deprive the plaintiff landlords of due process of law.”[28] The case did not bar cities from implementing rent control as long as it followed specific procedures; a victory in the face of defeat for many, including the BTU. According to Berkeley historian David Mundstock, in this new phase of organizing, the BTU “claimed that as the only Berkeley organization exclusively run by and for tenants, it had the right to exercise veto power over all rent control drafting decisions.”[29] After organizing a second rent strike that lasted eighteen months from 1974 – 1975, BTU relocated its effort to Measure B, a new and notably strict rent control ordinance. Unfortunately for the union, the City Council defeated the proposal 3-5 on March 15, 1977.[30] When Berkeley interest groups created a more moderate rent control proposal in March 1980, the BTU opposed it, claiming that it was not strong enough to protect tenants. It would take until 1984 with the California Supreme Court’s approval in Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984) 37 Cal.3d 644 for the first official (yet relatively moderate) rent control legislation to become law in Berkeley.[31]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4> Trainings and Coalition Building </h4><br />
Amidst all of the eviction, rent control, and rent increase fights, the Berkeley Tenants Union established a distinct set of programs designed to help low-income tenants gain the capabilities to organize on their own. As a short-term solution, BTU members offered free living space to evictees during the period the union was contesting their eviction. Within a few weeks of its formation, BTU began offering training “in basic tenant-landlord law for all organizers” with help from the Movement Liberation Front.[32] They also set aside $2500 to form a legal staff that would help union members in court and offer tenants any requested legal advice. Similarly, the February 30, 1970 issue of Bar Sinister News, a tenants’ rights newsletter jointly issued by BTU and TORCH, outlined one important aspect of the unions’ legal procedures on the front page of every issue.[33] Furthermore, the BTU even offered a Relief Squad that tenants could contact if their landlords had committed violence against them. Outside of the housing realm, the BTU often coordinated events with local food conspiracies to help control rising food costs (a disproportionately large burden for tenants on the ropes with their landlords).[34] As the tenants union grew, it began to spearhead more coalitions, which was a testament to their goal of becoming more than just a tenants’ rights advocacy group.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
The Berkeley Tenants Union actively worked to promote cross-movement solidarity throughout the Bay Area. Most notable was its joint publication of later issues of Tenants Rising with the Black Panther Party. With this relationship in mind, the BTU campaigned against police brutality throughout the Berkeley community, especially since many of their organizers still held anti-police sentiment after the People’s Park protests.[35] During eviction mobilizations, the union would often lambast the “inflammatory presence of Alameda County sheriffs” and the “pigs….led by Mayor Johnson.”[36] Tenants Rising even published a letter from University of California, Santa Barbara students in their call for protest support against an officer who drove his cruiser over a student. Solidarity with the antiwar movement was also notably strong. The BTU helped to organize a student strike vote at the Barrington Cooperative in May 1970 to try and build “a united movement” against the Vietnam War.[37] On the domestic front, the BTU aligned with Women’s Liberation to prevent gender discrimination in housing and put pressure on the state for new child care centers throughout the city.[38] Solidarity was a key BTU principle, as they coordinated citywide efforts with People’s Architecture, the Berkeley Tribe, Ecology Action, the West Berkeley Poor People’s Council, and the North Berkeley Neighborhood Council for a wide variety of progressive causes.[39] With this sense of cooperation in mind, the union wanted to create “the most serious and joyous community organizing movement Berkeley has ever seen!”[40] In following such aspirations, the BTU set themselves the lofty goal of affecting a property control revolution.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4> Revolutionary Dreams, and Significant Success </h4><br />
The Berkeley Tenants Union aimed to use tenant mobilization to gain community control of housing. “Building a strong tenants union” was the first and most vital step to establishing “popular control of living space,” which included maintaining a resident-dictated cost of living and “asserting through collective action the community’s needs for a healthy environment.”[41] One powerful method to achieve this end was to increase the political legitimacy of the neighborhood. Community organizing had been key to getting City Council to pass the 1973 Neighborhood Ordinance and other policies specifically focused on the neighborhood as a political unit. On a long-term scale, granting individual neighborhoods more power and improving housing programs were both part of a larger goal of controlling city wealth.[42] The Berkeley Tenants Union did not just want to provide short-term fixes to tenants’ problems, they wanted to overhaul the hierarchical, capitalistic housing system that created these problems in the first place. They believed that forming a tenants union was “profoundly subversive” and allowed them to accomplish “experiments in community control,” such as preserving aged homes and limiting the growth of BART and the University of California.”[43] In and of itself, the Berkeley Tenants Union was an experiment, and a fairly successful one at that. While it did not revolutionize the relationship between tenants and landlords, it provided services that the city of Berkeley was unwilling or unable to, while drastically increasing low-income renters’ political power. The BTU centered the city’s political focus on affordable housing, an issue that would plague Berkeley for decades to come. As shown by BTU’s victorious protests against large property firms, landlords intent on profit-mongering would now have to consider whether evictions or rent increases were worth community outrage. Through these actions, the BTU created a new community of activists that took the reins of local housing debates and gave them firmly to the people.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
[[Image:TenantsUnionPhoto6.png]]<br />
<br><br />
'''As this hammer and anvil indicate, the BTU aimed to revolutionize property and wealth control in Berkeley.''' <br><br />
''Image: Tenants Rising, V.1:6, Bancroft Library,'' <br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<h4> Transformations and The BTU Today </h4><br />
As a result of infighting and a lack of community fervor, the BTU went dormant in the early 1980s. It took over thirty years for the organization to re-emerge, with Berkeley Rent Board Commissioner Judy Shelton leading the charge to revive the union. The BTU of the twenty-first century had one key difference. As Commissioner Harr pointed out, the “new” BTU still provided necessary legal and community resources to struggling tenants (especially students), but lacked the radicalism and revolutionary mission that the “old” BTU so fervently advocated for.[44] Even without this larger goal, the BTU of today is dedicated to combatting evictions, providing tenants with legal advice, and advocating for tenants’ rights throughout Berkeley. Through these services, the BTU maintains its legacy of creating an environment where struggling citizens have the means to participate in and influence their community. This foundational principle has guided the tenants union throughout its entire existence, and has driven the BTU to redefine what it truly means to live in a community.<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
[1] “Tenants Rising: Berkeley Tenants Union,” Tenants Rising, September 22, 1969, 1, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[2] “Community Meeting,” ''Tenants Rising'', October 1969, 1, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[3] Tova Indritz, “[http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nmlr1&div=7&g_sent=1&collection=journals The Tenants’ Rights Movement],” ''New Mexico Law Review 1'', no.1 (1971): <br />
4, 1, accessed October 3, 2016; “Community Meeting,” October 1969, 1.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[4] Indritz, “The Tenants’ Rights Movement,” 14, 18; Myron Moskovitz, “The Great Rent Control War,” [http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/pubs/159 Publications 159] (2010): 2-3, accessed September 26, 2016. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[5] The People of Berkeley - A Policy, City of Berkeley Planning Commission, August 1974, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 2; Housing Element: Berkeley Master Plan, 6.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[6] Housing Element: Berkeley Master Plan, City of Berkeley Planning Commission Housing Committee, July 31, 1975, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 15.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[7] Indritz, “The Tenants’ Rights Movement,” 29; “Community Meeting,” October 1969, 1.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[8] Housing Element: Berkeley Master Plan, 3; The People of Berkeley – A Policy, 25.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[9] The People of Berkeley – A Policy, 5. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[10] “Community Meeting,” October 1969, 1.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[11] “Strike Meeting,” ''Tenants Rising'', January 3, 1970, 8, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; “Community Meeting,” October 1969, 1.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[12] Interview with Katherine Harr by author, November 10, 2016. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[13] Two-thirds of Berkeley’s African-American population lived in West and South Berkeley. BTU and TORCH would often work together to hold joint tenants rights’ rallies. Pierre Clavel, ''The Progressive City: Planning and Participation'', 1969-1984 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1986), 107; “BTU-TORCH Rally,” Tenants Rising, November 1969, 1, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; The People of Berkeley – A Policy, 8; “The Great Berkeley Rent Strike,” Berkeley Tenants Union, Berkeley Tenants Union 1970 – 1979 Collection, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[14] Eve Bach et al., ''The Cities’ Wealth: Programs for Community Economic Control, Institute for Policy Studies Conference on Alternative State and Local Public Policies'', 1976, 3; Clavel, ''The Progressive City, 108''; “Tenants Rising: Berkeley Tenants Union,” September 22, 1969, 1. <br />
<br><br />
<br />
[15] Interview with Katherine Harr by author, November 10, 2016.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[16] “Sample Strike Pledge,” ''Tenants Rising'', October 1969, 1, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; “Tenants Rising: Berkeley Tenants Union,” ''Tenants Rising'', October 22, 1969, 2, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[17] “Tenants Rising: Berkeley Tenants Union,” September 22, 1969, 1.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[18] Ibid.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[19] “Community Meeting,” October 1969, 1.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[20] “Tenants Rising: Berkeley Tenants Union,” ''Tenants Rising'', October 22, 1969, 1, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; “Tenant Toons,” Tenants Rising, March 11, 1970, 1, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[21] “[http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-news/2360 Berkeley radicals press demands: Landlords brace for rent boycott,]” ''The BG News'', September 25, 1969, 4, accessed October 1, 2016.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[22] Housing Element: Berkeley Master Plan, 10, 26; “Rent Strike Projected February 1,” ''Tenants Rising'', January 3, 1970, 1, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[23] “Rent Strike Projected February 1,” January 3, 1970, 1; Clavel, ''The Progressive City'', 107.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[24] “BTU Halts Evictions,” ''Tenants Rising'', November 25, 1969, 1, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[25] Ibid; “BTU-TORCH Rally,” November 1969, 1.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[26] “BTU Halts Evictions,” November 25, 1969, 1; “Golden Gate is Falling Down,” ''Tenants Rising'', January 3, 1970, 7, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[27] Clavel, ''The Progressive City'', 118.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[28] David Mundstock, “[http://berkeleyinthe70s.homestead.com/files/e-71to73.htm The New City Council, 1971 – 1973,”] in ''Berkeley in the 70s: A History of Progressive Electoral Politics'', accessed October 27, 2016; David Mundstock, “[http://berkeleyinthe70s.homestead.com/files/m-rent.htm Rent Control Returns,]” in ''Berkeley in the 70s: A History of Progressive Electoral Politics'', accessed October 27, 2016.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[29] Moskovitz, “The Great Rent Control War,” 6; David Mundstock, “[http://berkeleyinthe70s.homestead.com/files/p-77camp.htm The Buzz Wilms Boomlet,]” in ''Berkeley in the 70s: A History of Progressive Electoral Politics'', accessed October 27, 2016.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[30] “Eviction Trial, February 22, 1975,” Berkeley Tenants Union, Berkeley Tenants Union 1970 – 1979 Collection, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; Mundstock, “The Buzz Wilms Boomlet,” Berkeley in the 70s.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[31] David Mundstock, “[http://berkeleyinthe70s.homestead.com/files/w-june80.htm The June 1980 Election - Rent Control on the Brink of Extinction or Expansion,]” in ''Berkeley in the 70s: A History of Progressive Electoral Politics'', accessed October 27, 2016; Moskovitz, “The Great Rent Control War,” 14.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[32] “Strike Meeting,” January 3, 1970, 8; “Tenants Rising: Berkeley Tenants Union,” September 22, 1969, 1.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[33] “Tenants Rising: Berkeley Tenants Union,” ''Tenants Rising'', October 22, 1969, 3, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; “Tenants Rising: Berkeley Tenants Union,” September 22, 1969, 1; “Outline of Legal Procedure,” ''Bar Sinister News 1'', no.2, February 30, 1970, Berkeley Tenants Union 1970 – 1979 Collection, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[34] “The Great Berkeley Rent Strike,” Berkeley Tenants Union, Bancroft Library; “Food Conspiracy,” ''Tenants Rising'', November 25, 1969, 3, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[35] “Berkeley,” ''Tenants Rising'', March 11, 1970, 2, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; Clavel, The Progressive City, 104.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[36] “The Great Berkeley Rent Strike,” Berkeley Tenants Union, Bancroft Library; “Berkeley,” March 11, 1970, 2.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[37] Cindy Heaton and Louis Dewie, “To the Berkeley Student Body,” Berkeley Tenants Union 1970 – 1979 Collection, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; “Noon Rally,” Berkeley Tenants Union, Berkeley Tenants Union 1970 – 1979 Collection, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[38] “Landlords Down on Women!” Tenants Rising, January 3, 1970, 3, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; “Child Care Centers Now!” ''Tenants Rising'', November 25, 1969, 3, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[39] “Control Your Community,” ''Tenants Rising'', November 25, 1969, 1, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; “Strike Meeting,” January 3, 1970, 8; “Grow Your Own,” Tenants Rising, March 11, 1970, 8, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[40] “Strike Meeting,” January 3, 1970, 8.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[41] “Control Your Community,” November 25, 1969, 1.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[42] Clavel, The Progressive City, 120; Bach et al., The Cities’ Wealth, 19.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[43] “Saga of the tenant union,” Tenants Rising, November 25, 1969, 2, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[44] Today the Berkeley Tenants Union is located in the Grassroots House, a space for progressive organizations that also houses Copwatch and the Alameda County Chapter of the Green Party. Interview with Katherine Harr by author, November 10, 2016.<br />
<br />
[[category:1970s]] [[category:East Bay]] [[category:Bay Area Social Movements]] [[category:Housing]]</div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:TenantsUnionPhoto6.png&diff=26440File:TenantsUnionPhoto6.png2017-04-24T23:16:41Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:TenantsUnionPhoto5.png&diff=26439File:TenantsUnionPhoto5.png2017-04-24T23:16:14Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:TenantsUnionPhoto4.png&diff=26438File:TenantsUnionPhoto4.png2017-04-24T23:15:36Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:TenantsUnionPhoto3.png&diff=26437File:TenantsUnionPhoto3.png2017-04-24T23:14:59Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:TenantsUnionPhoto2.png&diff=26436File:TenantsUnionPhoto2.png2017-04-24T23:14:28Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrosehttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:TenantsUnionPhoto1.png&diff=26434File:TenantsUnionPhoto1.png2017-04-24T23:13:45Z<p>Elliotrose: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Elliotrose