Contra Costa Herald

Photo source: Transform

Transform’s leader calls it “a tragic missed opportunity” and “major setback for our climate and transportation goals”; labels opponents who successfully challenged measure, “extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists”

“RM4 barely polled 54% before we even had a chance to open our mouths about it. Are 46% of the citizens of the Bay Area ‘extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists’?” – 20 Billion Reasons campaign opposition leader Gus Mattammal

By Allen D. Payton

In an email to supporters and an announcement this week, Jenn Guitart, Executive Director of Transform decried the removal of the $20 billion Bay Area housing measure from the November ballot and demonized those who successfully challenged it. According to polling commissioned by the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority which placed the measure on the ballot, they found that only 54% of likely voters supported the bond. That’s much lower than the 66.7% support of voters required for it to pass. (See related articles here and here)  CCH: (See related articles here and here)

Labeled “What It Means for Our Movement” Guitart’s email and identical announcement on the Transform’s website read:

On Wednesday morning, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) unanimously voted to remove Regional Measure 4 from the 2024 ballot. The measure would have raised $20 billion to alleviate the Bay Area’s housing and homelessness crisis. Unfortunately, the measure was scuttled in response to a series of eleventh-hour challenges by extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists. This is a tragic missed opportunity for voters to say yes to urgently needed affordable housing and homelessness funding.

This decision is heartbreaking for Transform and other housing advocates, and, more importantly, for the hundreds of thousands of people in our region who now must wait longer for the affordable housing and homelessness solutions Bay Area residents need and deserve.

The decision is also a major setback for our climate and transportation goals. By funding the construction of over 40,000 new affordable homes near transit, the measure would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by over three million tons and spurred an additional five million transit trips per year.

While it is frustrating that a well-resourced group of naysayers halted progress on housing and homelessness this election, Transform and our partners will continue to build the necessary power to win big on these critical issues.

Looking Forward

All is not lost in the fight for affordable housing. Transform and our partners will be working hard to pass Prop 5 this November, which will lower the voter approval threshold for housing and public infrastructure bond measures (from a two-thirds vote) to 55%. This measure is critical to advancing future affordable housing bond measures across the state.

Beyond November, our region continues to face significant challenges, from the housing and homelessness crisis to a looming transit fiscal cliff. New regional funding measures for both transportation and affordable housing are urgently needed. Passing both measures in the coming years will take unprecedented collaboration, creativity, and courage.

Transform will play a leading role in both these efforts as we continue our work to empower communities of color, innovate solutions, and advocate for policies and funding — all with the aim of helping people thrive and averting climate disaster. And we will need supporters like you in this fight to build up the necessary resources, political will, and movement organizing to beat the anti-taxers in future election cycles.

In the meantime, get ready to vote yes on Prop 5 in November, and stay tuned for future calls to action in the fight for housing, transportation, and climate justice for our region.

Transform Executive Asked Why She Demonized Measure’s Opponents

Guitart was asked why she would demonize the opponents to the measure when it only polled at 54% support prior to it being placed on the ballot, which is much lower than the 2/3rds vote currently required and also less than the 55% threshold required for a future vote should Prop 5 pass. She was also asked if she’s claiming 46% of the public who opposed it in the poll are also “extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists” and isn’t she risking angering those who opposed the measure from the start, some of whose support will be needed for passage of a future ballot measure.

Guitart was then asked with such a low level of support, shouldn’t the measure have been revised before it was placed on the ballot in order to address some of the concerns of the opposition to ensure a better possibility of it passing.

She was also asked instead wouldn’t it be better if Transform worked with the opponents to try and find common ground or a ballot measure that will be less anathema to them for a possible future vote or to achieve her organization’s goals

Finally, Guitart was asked if she is willing to offer a public apology to the measure’s opponents, revise her public statement removing the swipes at them and tone down the divisive rhetoric.

However, in response Guitart shared that she is unable to respond right now due to a family issue but wrote, “I will pass your concerns on to our team.”

Ballot Measure Opponent Leader Responds

When asked about the swipes at the opponents made by Transform’s executive director, Gus Mattammal, the leader of the opposition campaign, 20 Billion Reasons, responded, “I have a couple of responses to that characterization:

1) 20 Billion Reasons comprised Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents – the entire political spectrum. And to be clear, Democrats were about half the group.

2) Almost everyone in the group has willingly voted for tax increases before, so it’s silly to label folks as ‘anti-tax’. If someone comes to you with an idea for a pizza with pickles, sardines, and mayonnaise, and you say ‘um, no thanks!’, does that make you anti-pizza? Or are you just anti- “this particular idea for pizza”?

No one in this group is against well-constructed policies to alleviate housing unaffordability. Unfortunately, nothing about Regional Measure 4 was ‘well-constructed policy’.

3) RM4 barely polled 54% before we even had a chance to open our mouths about it, and the polling was destined to only go down from there. That means 46% of the voters were against this from the beginning. Are 46% of the citizens of the Bay Area ‘extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists’? I’m a registered Republican, and I feel like our fortunes as a party would be very different here in the Bay Area if that were true.”

About Transform

Founded in 1997 as Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition (BATLUC), according to the organization’s website, Transform works “with organizations, advocates, and community members for improved transportation and housing policies and funding. Together, we can invest in climate and equity, promote innovative transportation, support transportation shifts, and address climate-related housing issues.”

The group claims to have moved “the Overton window”, which is an approach to identifying the ideas that define the spectrum of acceptability of governmental policies that says politicians can act only within the acceptable range, “steadily toward equity and climate resilience.”

They, “envision vibrant neighborhoods, transformed by excellent, sustainable mobility options and affordable housing, where those historically impacted by racist disinvestment now have power and voice.”

For more information about Transform visit www.TransFormCA.org or call (510) 740-3150.

CONTENT WARNING: Information included may be disturbing to some individuals

Antioch childcare facility, Pittsburg pediatrician also named

Attorney says agencies “utterly failed in their duties” to protect 18-month-old girl abused by parents also named in suit

San Francisco, August 20, 2024 — A federal civil rights lawsuit was filed in the beating death of an 18-month-old child in Antioch, alleging that a litany of individuals and agencies charged with protecting the tiny girl utterly failed in their duties and led directly to her death as the result of trauma inflicted by her biological parents.

The case, filed last week in Federal District Court on behalf of the two older siblings of the toddler, names the following defendants as negligently responsible for her horrific death: the City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department, Contra Costa Child Protective Services, Contra Costa County Regional Health Foundation, and a childcare facility, The Learning Center (actually named, The Learning Experience – see below), as well as the toddler’s biological parents, Jessika Fulcher and Worren Young, Sr.

The child was removed from her parent’s custody within weeks of her birth in February 2021 because she was in danger of neglect and abuse. Yet, over the next 16 months, the very people and institutions who were supposed to protect the toddler and her siblings failed to report obvious signs of abuse and/or failed to take action to prevent further trauma to the girl.

The child died August 26, 2022, from trauma so severe that it severed her pancreas and caused bleeding in her brain, according to doctors and the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages, including punitive damages against the agencies and individuals named as responsible in the legal action.

“This child–who was still learning to walk–was brutally tortured and died a horrific death, all because the entire system that was supposed to protect her failed this innocent 18-month-old child,” said Brett Schreiber, attorney for the plaintiffs and partner at Singleton Schreiber law firm. “While her parents committed the physical abuse that killed her, their abuse was entirely enabled and abetted by social workers, police, hospitals and day care centers who should have stopped them.”

A juvenile court judge removed the toddler from the custody of her parents in March 2021, shortly after her birth.  When the child was born, both she and her mother had methamphetamines in their systems. In addition, both parents had outstanding warrants in Georgia. The children were placed in foster care.

Within weeks of the judge’s decision, however, Contra Costa County Child Protective Services (CPS) began a process intended to lead to reuniting the children with the parents, beginning with a “case plan” requiring close supervision of the parents. The case plan required the parents to submit to regular drug testing. The suit alleges that they missed half these mandated tests and failed many that they took.

A doctor at Pittsburg Health Center further noted injuries on the toddler, but neither the doctor nor the hospital notified CPS, and CPS never requested the hospital’s records.

Nonetheless, CPS soon allowed overnight visitations for the children with the parents, and by September 2021 enabled the parents to regain custody by concealing these and other facts from the judge.

The toddler returned to a household in turmoil, with Antioch police visiting the home at least three times in 2022. Yet the children remained in the home and no referral to CPS was made, even though the father was finally arrested for domestic violence and battery. The child’s daycare center, The Learning Center in Antioch, also alerted the mother regarding significant bruising on the toddler yet failed to make a mandated referral to CPS.

On August 25, 2022, Antioch Police Department officers and paramedics were called to the child’s home by her mother who reported that the girl was having trouble breathing. The girl was rushed to the hospital where doctors discovered she was the victim of severe, intentional injuries.

Her parents left the hospital during the night saying they were going out to smoke, but never returned. The girl died the following morning; a juvenile court hearing in April 2023 concluded that one or both parents were responsible for the fatal injuries.

“This was a complete dereliction of duty that resulted in the death of one young child and the lifelong loss and trauma for two others,” Schreiber said. “On behalf of those siblings, we are asking the court not only to compensate them for the life-long emotional scarring they will suffer, but also to punish those who failed to prevent this horrible tragedy so that it never happens again.”

Antioch City Attorney Thomas L. Smith and Interim Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington were asked on Tuesday afternoon if they had any comment about the lawsuit. Addington was also asked if lawsuits naming the police department are received by the chief or if they are handled by the city attorney’s office. Neither responded by publication time Wednesday evening.

Asked if the County had any comment on the lawsuit, Tish Gallegos, Community Relations and Media for the Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services Department responded, “The County has not been served with the lawsuit, therefore has no comment at this time.”

Asked whom at the County was served with the lawsuit, Sam Singer, of Singer Associates Public Relations representing Singleton Schreiber said, “I know the lawsuit was filed but it may not have been served, yet.”

The press release shows the case is O.Y., W.Y., and A.Y. v. County of Contra Costa, City of Antioch, Jessika Fulcher, Worren Young, Sr., Colleen Sullivan, Flynne Lewis, Contra Costa Regional Health Foundation, The Learning Center, Raji Ponnaluri, and Does 1 through 50, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Correction, Details Provided on Named Parties

However, the name of the business is actually, The Learning Experience.

Provided with that information and asked how Sullivan, Lewis and Ponnaluri are related to the lawsuit, Singer shared details from the lawsuit, including: “over the next year, from March 2021 to April 2022, during the pendency of the dependency action, CPS workers—Defendants in this action— abysmally failed to protect O.Y. and W.Y. Defendants Colleen Sullivan and Does 1-10, CPS employees, repeatedly misled and deceived the juvenile court. They represented that Defendant Parents were complying with the court’s orders documented in a ‘case plan,’ when, in fact, Defendant Parents were violating the terms of the case plan.”

Singer also shared, “defendant Flynne Lewis was a pediatrician practicing medicine at the Pittsburg Health Center who was responsible for the health, safety, and welfare of Decedent O.Y. and Plaintiff W.Y. Defendant Lewis and staff working at the Pittsburg Health Center noted and documented signs of abuse and neglect of O.Y., but failed to report such information to CPS or any law enforcement agency.”

Finally, Singer provided details about the correct name for the business and its owner which reads, “At all relevant times, Defendant The Learning Experience was a daycare center located at 4831 Lone Tree Way, Antioch, CA 94531 which was owned and operated by Defendant Raji Ponnaluri.”

Singleton Schreiber is a client-centered law firm, specializing in mass torts/multi-district litigation, fire litigation, personal injury/wrongful death, civil rights, environmental law, and sexual abuse/trafficking. Over the last decade, the firm has recovered more than $2.5 billion for clients who have been harmed and sought justice. The firm also has the largest fire litigation practice in the country, having represented over 26,000 victims of wildfire, most notably serving plaintiffs in litigation related to the 2023 Maui wildfires, the Colorado Marshall wildfire, the Washington Gray wildfire, and others.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Existing Bay Trail map (left), Bay Trail sign and Bay Trail Gaps map (right). Source: MTC

The Bay Trail Gap Closure Implementation Plan (BTGCIP) sets priorities for future work to complete the remaining 150 miles of the vision of a 500-mile trail network around the bay.

By MTC & ABAG staff

Staff from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) this summer released the Bay Trail Gap Closure Implementation Plan (BTGCIP) final report, which establishes prioritization criteria to rank the benefit of closing the remaining gaps in the San Francisco Bay Trail.

The vision for a complete Bay Trail is a total of 500 miles of trails that circle the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. To date, more than 350 miles have been completed.

The BTGCIP inventories the remaining gaps, identifies priorities and ranking of gaps for future investment, and develops cost estimates for closing those gaps.

A segment of the existing Bay Trail. Photo credit: Arup

A multi-year process, the BTGCIP featured engagement with a working group of more than 100 participants, with representation from all nine Bay Area counties. The working group included staff from cities, counties, state, federal, transit and advocacy organizations, as well as partnership with nine community-based organizations that engaged with members of the public in Equity Priority Communities.

The process reviewed the entire Bay Trail through the lens of these identified priorities:

• Center Equity Priority Communities in building out future segments of the Bay Trail
• Connect segments that create the longest continuous sections of trail
• Connect job centers to housing
• Increase access to transit-rich and connected communities
• Improve access to parks and open space
• Preserve the shoreline environment and access to the shoreline
• Consider impacts of sea level rise in the coming decades

Project area map showing the existing and proposed locations of the Bay Trail and Connector Trails. Source: MTC BTGCIP

Project History

In 2005, MTC and the ABAG conducted an evaluation of the Bay Trail network, The San Francisco Bay Trail Project Gap Analysis Study. This study identified gaps in the Bay Trail network, scored and prioritized them, developed cost estimates for future construction, and presented an overall timeframe for completion of the full 500-mile vision of the Bay Trail.

The purpose of the BTGCIP is to build upon the work from 2005 to identify and evaluate existing missing segments of Bay Trail (trail gaps) and prioritize their construction in the remaining build-out of the Bay Trail.

In this updated gap analysis study, a greater emphasis was placed on Equity Priority Community engagement and needs along with aligning the prioritization criteria with Plan Bay Area 2050.

Finally, the study updated cost estimates for closing gaps and conducted sea level rise analysis to begin the discussion about how certain segments of the Bay Trail may need to consider adaptation strategies in the future.

Source: MTC BTGICP

Engagement

The BTGCIP focused on working with the San Francisco Bay Trail Board and Steering Committee, partner agency stakeholders and the community to identify new criteria for prioritizing gap closures and assessing the projects identified to address existing gaps.

This process involved:

1. A Working Group with agency staff and advocates from throughout the region. The working group had more than 100 participants – staff from cities, counties, state, federal, transit and advocacy organizations – with representation from all nine Bay Area counties.
2. Paid partnerships with nine community-based organizations (CBOs) who work within and represent communities within Equity Priority Communities (EPCs). The CBO partners hosted nine public engagement events throughout the region with over 200 participants. Two events were held in Spanish, and Spanish translation was available at all events. The engagement events were held in many formats, including: bike rides, tabling at existing community events, zoom meetings, farm gatherings, dinners and picnics.

Existing and proposed locations of the Bay Trail and Connector Trails in Contra Costa County. Source: MTC

See Gap Closure Implementation Plan Prioritization Map – This map visualizes the existing Bay Trail network, the Bay Trail gaps symbolized by priority score, and the existing and proposed connector trails to the Bay Trail network.

See Bay Trail Fieldwork Review Map – This map visualizes the trail conditions data collected from a field review of all existing off-street Bay Trail segments (nearly 300 miles).

Staff Contact – Lily Brown, Associate Planner/Analyst ‐ Equitable and Active Transportation

Phone: 415-778-6721 Email: lbrown@bayareametro.gov

The Bay Trail is a joint project of the ABAG and MTC. To learn more click, here.

Company agrees to conditions resolving competitive impacts related to changes in ownership involving retail pharmacy outlets

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement with Rite Aid Corporation (Rite Aid) operating as an injunction to enable him to review changes of ownership involving their retail pharmacy outlets statewide. Additionally, the settlement includes injunctive conditions that resolve competition-related concerns to ensure remaining Rite Aid pharmacies provide necessary medication and healthcare services to Californians, specifically those who may rely on Medi-Cal and Medicare, and protect workers at stores that are sold or closed. Today’s settlement reflects the Attorney General’s efforts to prevent the continued growth of pharmacy deserts, which disproportionately impact low-income individuals, the elderly, and people of color, all of whom are also patients of Rite Aid. The settlement was reached under Assembly Bill (AB) 853.

“Pharmacies are often the most accessible healthcare providers, offering vital services for the well-being of individuals and families. Without them in our communities, Californians could face significant barriers in managing chronic conditions, receiving timely medications, and accessing preventative care,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, with AB 853 and conditions set by my office, Californians who rely on Rite Aid pharmacies can continue accessing their medications and essential healthcare services they need to live healthy and fulfilling lives.”

Rite Aid filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and began closing nearly 550 stores nationwide since October 2023. California experienced the closure of more than 100 stores statewide; however, approximately 71% of all stores in California have remained open throughout the bankruptcy and with one exception in San Diego, there were two or more competitive alternatives close by for the closed stores. This June, Rite Aid’s bankruptcy restructuring plan was approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, which turns over control of the company to a group of its lenders.

Under the settlement and AB 853, Rite Aid agrees to the following conditions for the next five years:

• Use commercially reasonable efforts to maintain the remaining Rite Aid stores, as well as all required licenses.
• Provide 90-day notice of sale or closure of remaining Rite Aid stores.
• Continue participation in Medi-Cal and Medicare if commercially reasonable.
• Provide financial assistance to patients if commercially reasonable to do so.
• Continue free delivery services to patients who were receiving these services from a closed store in San Diego.
• Ensure compliance with state staffing levels.
• Maintain hiring list for all employees from stores that close going forward for preferential hiring at other Rite-Aid stores.
• Use commercially reasonable efforts to pay retirement contributions if collective bargaining agreements require such payments.
• Use commercially reasonable efforts to abstain from contesting unemployment for individuals who are laid off as a result of the sale or closure of Rite Aid stores if no nearby Rite Aid store offers employment.
• Comply with nondiscrimination rules in the provision of healthcare services and to commercially reasonable efforts to provide financial assistance to patients.

The California Department of Justice’s Healthcare Rights and Access Section (HRA) works proactively to increase and protect the affordability, accessibility, and quality of healthcare in California. HRA’s attorneys monitor and contribute to various areas of the Attorney General’s healthcare work, including nonprofit healthcare transactions; consumer rights; anticompetitive consolidation in the healthcare market; anticompetitive drug pricing; privacy issues; civil rights, such as reproductive rights and LGBTQ healthcare-related rights; and public health work on tobacco, e-cigarettes, and other products.

A copy of the settlement can be found here.

The Antioch Community Center in Prewett Family Park is located at 4703 Lone Tree Way. To register visit http://desaulnier.house.gov/town-hall-rsvp.

Source: Samantha McNally

Visit 13 art galleries in Contra Costa County and Benicia for a chance to win prizes

By Samantha McNally, Main Street Arts Gallery

The Second Annual East Bay Gallery Tour has added six Benicia Art Galleries to the Tour this year! We now have 13 Art Galleries for you to visit during the month of October. You have the whole month to visit them and get your Gallery Tour postcard stamped for a chance to win a prize worth $300!

There will be a couple of smaller prizes if you don’t get to visit all of them. The winners will be chosen at random, picked from the completed postcards. The winners will get a certificate to purchase any artwork at any of the galleries in the Tour! This event is free and open to anyone who’d like to participate.

Visit any of the galleries listed below at the end of September or in October to pick up your postcard with a map and addresses of all the Art Galleries. The galleries will start stamping postcards on October 1.

The participating galleries are:

aRt Cottage 2238 Mt. Diablo Street, Concord www.artcottage.info
Bedford Gallery 1601 Civic Dr, Walnut Creek www.bedfordgallery.org/home-bedfordnew
Benicia Art Glass 309 1st Street, Benicia www.beniciaartglass.com
Benicia Plein Air Gallery 307 First Street, Benicia www.beniciapleinair.com
Blackhawk Gallery, ADAS 3416 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Danville www.adas4art.org
Gallery 621​ 920 First Street, Suite 203, Benicia https://gallery621.com
HQ Gallery 333-D First Street, Benicia www.hqgallery.net
JOR Clayton Gallery 1026 Oak Street Suite 102, Clayton https://jorfineartgallery.com
The Little Art Shop 129 First Street, Benicia www.thelittleartshop.com
Main Street Arts Gallery 613 Main Street, Martinez www.mainstreetarts.net
Moraga Art Gallery 432 Center Street, Moraga www.moragaartgallery.com
NY2CA Gallery 617 1st St, Benicia https://ny2cagallery.com
Valley Art Gallery 1661 Botelho Drive, Suite 110, Walnut Creek https://valleyartgallery.org

QR code to the Google map showing locations of all galleries in the tour.

For more information visit www.mainstreetarts.net/east-bay-gallery-tour-2024.html.

Martinez, CA Letter Carrier Raul Hernandez. Photo: USPS

Pittsburg resident Raul Hernandez to be honored in ceremony Aug. 22

By Meiko S. Patton, Communications Specialist, U.S. Postal Service

On Thursday, August 22, 2024, Letter Carrier Raul Hernandez will be honored during a celebration party for his 30 years of service.

Hernandez, a Pittsburg resident, began his federal service as a Marine. He later joined the Postal Service in 1998 as a Letter Carrier in San Francisco where he worked for 18 years before transferring to Martinez, CA.

A typical workday for him involves casing mail, pulling down mail, sorting packages for his route and delivering mail. “It’s been a good run here at the post office. It was kind of fortuitous that I would one day work here since I worked as a postal clerk in the Marines,” he said. “The secret to my longevity has been my military background, the word quit isn’t in my vocabulary. I truly enjoy my job and have no plans of leaving.”

The celebration will be held at 8:00 am at the Martinez Post Office, 4100 Alhambra Avenue in Martinez.

Challenger Katherine Piccinini (Source: campaign) disagrees with incumbent Mark DeSaulnier (Source: campaign) on his views about Chevron and their headquarters move from San Ramon to Texas.

By Katherine Piccinini

My pledge to the people of Contra Costa District 10 is to be Putting the People First. The incumbent has made it very clear, as Chevron prepares to leave San Ramon for Texas, he, the incumbent, is putting state and federal policies first. (See related article)

When we think of a large company moving away from its long-term home area, there are many challenges to be considered, such as: loss of revenue from the move, stress of relocating families, children’s emotional and educational issues and the strain on families having to start over. In the incumbents’ words, “I hope as Chevron relocates their corporate facilities, they will keep California’s climate goals in mind.” Really? With all the overwhelming human factors involved, the executives should keep our state’s climate goals in mind. Again, really?

Chevron’s achievements in pursuing and investing in alternative energy sources was have been well defined touching on areas of solar, wind, biofuel, geothermal and hydrogen. Have these pursuits been unacceptable? This is all part of reducing so-called “greenhouse emissions” as we continue to rely on naturally formed, carbon-based oil, often referred to as fossil fuels. Chevron has been at odds with California State regulators and politicians over fossil fuels and climate change for years. Because they want Chevron to be a diverse energy company investing in clean renewable energy does not mean that Chevron has not put forth great alternatives. California is considered to be one of the most progressive energy states but, we shouldn’t allow “cancel culture” to override reasonable considerations.

And that is the problem. It is California policies that are driving residents and companies elsewhere. This move was known since 2022. Chevron has been in California for 140 years and in San Ramon since 2002. Chevron cited that California policies have hurt consumers, and they feel this is not good for the economy so they will seek greener pastures. Also, there appears to be something more ominous on the horizon as California’s Energy Commission is considering taking over oil refineries and operations in the Golden State. May that be the bigger threat to Chevron and possibly other private industries?

We will miss this “oil giant” and all that it has brought to our district in stimulating the economy, jobs and stepping forward to pursue energy alternatives for our state.

Piccinini is a candidate for Congress in District 10 which includes most of the cities and communities in Central and Eastern Contra Costa County.

For more information visit www.facebook.com/Bethel.Island.Chamber.

High-density, high-rise housing construction would have been funded by the bond measure. Photo: BAHFA

Removed from all nine Bay Area counties after Contra Costa attorney opposed to measure filed lawsuit claiming ballot language was slanted, forced BAHFA to correct more than $240 million error

20 Billion Reasons opposition campaign responds

By Allen D. Payton

Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) Chair Alfredo Pedroza and Belia Ramos, president of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)’s Executive Board today, Wednesday, August 14, 2024, issued a joint statement following BAHFA’s decision this morning to remove a $20 billion general obligation bond measure for the production and preservation of affordable housing from the November 5 general election ballot in all nine Bay Area counties:

“The BAHFA Board’s decision to withdraw the affordable housing bond measure from this November’s ballot is not one that was taken lightly. The Bay Area’s housing affordability crisis has been decades in the making and is far too big for any one city or county to solve on its own. This is the reason the state Legislature established BAHFA. A robust source of funding for safe and affordable housing across our diverse, nine-county region is essential to the Bay Area’s economic and environmental health and to its residents’ quality of life.

The decision followed the action of a group of Bay Area residents, known as Opportunity Now, who opposed the $20 billion regional housing bond measure and filed a court challenge on Thursday, Aug. 8, 2024, to Regional Measure 4’s (RM4) 75-word ballot question claiming it was slanted.

Source: Opportunity Now

Following is the press release from the group announcing the lawsuit, entitled “BAHFA blunders on ballot language for Bay Area tax measure” and “Gets busted for wildly lowballing cost to taxpayers”:

“Talk about misinformation. The discredited Bay Area Housing Finance Authority yesterday admitted that they’d misrepresented in ballot language the annual cost to taxpayers of the mammoth bond by (hold on) more than $240 million (you read that right) per year.

“The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA), a recently created regional agency, placed RM4 on the November 5 ballot. The unprecedented size of the bond measure has already drawn opposition.

The 20BillionReasons.com group helped pull together ballot arguments rebutting the claims for the measure. The lawsuit asserts that the ballot question is slanted to prejudice voters to vote in favor of the measure.

BAHFA conducted multiple polls to test various phrases in relation to the measure and picked the most popular ones. The lawsuit asserts that the ballot question contains a series of phrases that are not found in the language of the measure. The legal standard is that the ballot question must be an accurate synopsis.

Opponents’ Attorney Jason Bezis sent BAHFA a letter last Friday demanding a series of nine language changes to remove prejudicial language. Opponents assert that the true annual cost of the measure is nearly 36% higher than the amount shown in the ballot question.

The very name of the measure is deceptive: Bay Area Affordable Plan. This measure’s taxes will make the Bay Area even less affordable. In response, BAHFA held a special meeting of its Executive Committee this morning.

The lawsuit has already had success: The Committee adopted General Counsel Kathleen Kane’s recommendation “to correct the Ballot Question for Regional Measure 4 by deleting ‘$670,000,000’ from the Ballot Question and replacing it with ‘$910,976,423’.” No other changes to the ballot question were adopted today.

General Counsel Kane described this as a “mathematical error”. Plaintiff Marc Joffe retorted: “How can the public trust an agency that can’t do basic arithmetic with nearly $50 billion of its taxes? Ridiculous.”

“By law, Regional Measure 4 is coordinated by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, so the Santa Clara County Superior Court is where this challenge was filed. The final language of the RM4 ballot question will now be determined by the court. See www.NoOnRM4.com for further information.”

“This public body, MTC in the form BAHFA, they finally acknowledged the public is not willing to support more taxes. It’s completely new to them. They’ve never recognized it before. They exist in this world in which the public is there to give them all the resources they want to monkey around with,” said David Schonbrunn, paralegal for the lawsuit said after the measure was removed from the ballot. “The worst part is MTC, when it comes to their transportation decision making, they have a dismal record on outcomes. Their outcomes are horrible. What I see them doing is it’s all about political deal making and it’s not about delivering solutions to the public.”

The BAHFA statement continued, “The BAHFA Board has always understood that it would be a steep climb to establish this source of funding. Recent developments have led the Board to conclude that the wise choice is to look ahead to another election season for a regional housing measure when there is more certainty and the voters have weighed in affirmatively on Proposition 5.

“In the meantime, BAHFA will continue to work on increasing the production of housing at all income levels, to preserve existing affordable housing, and to protect current residents from displacement. This includes maintaining, refining and expanding pilot programs such as the online Doorway Housing portal that makes it easier for prospective tenants to find and apply for affordable housing throughout the region and easier for developers and property managers to lease up their apartments; working to move thousands of planned housing units through the predevelopment pipeline; and implementing innovative programs to preserve affordable housing and prevent homelessness.

“BAHFA’s commitment to a regional approach toward solving the Bay Area’s housing affordability problems is stronger than ever. When the climb toward passage of a regional revenue measure resumes, the Board looks forward to teaming with every one of the Bay Area’s nine counties and 101 cities; and with the hundreds of other public, private and nonprofit partners who already have invested so much energy into this effort. Their work to prepare for a November bond measure, and the relationships built along the way, have laid a strong foundation for future success. Each step brings us closer to the summit.”

BAHFA is jointly governed by the ABAG’s Executive Board and by the BAHFA Board, which is comprised of the same membership as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). BAHFA and MTC Chair Pedroza and ABAG Executive Board President Ramos both also serve as members of the Napa County Board of Supervisors.

20 Billion Reasons Campaign Responds

In response to the withdrawal of the measure from the ballot, the opposition campaign, 20 Billion Reasons, responded with their own statement on Wednesday, August 14, 2024:

“This morning, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) voted to pull Regional Measure 4, the $20 billion dollar regional bond measure, off the November ballot. Gus Mattammal, President of the 20 Billion Reasons campaign to defeat the bond measure in November, hailed the move.

Said Mattammal, “This decision is a win for Bay Area taxpayers, and a win for affordable housing. To address housing affordability in a meaningful way, we have to address root causes, not soak taxpayers for billions of dollars to pay bonds that would waste two thirds of their tax money on interest and overhead while barely making a dent in the issue.”

The 20 Billion Reasons campaign brought together Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents in a single campaign, a rarity in recent times, but a necessity.

“Actually, working on the root causes of the housing crisis in California – a crisis created by our legislature and the corporate interests to which they are beholden – is politically difficult. It’s much easier to simply raise taxes,” said Mattammal. “That’s why it’s so important for voters to say ‘no’ to deeply flawed proposals such as Regional Measure 4: every time we do say no, it helps create the political conditions to work on the problem in a meaningful way.”

Though Regional Measure 4 is off the ballot for November, many other expensive proposals remain on that ballot. The $20 Billion Reasons campaign team is excited to regroup and consider the best way forward to help ensure that Bay Area taxpayers are getting real solutions for the taxes they pay and that they have a real voice in what is done with their tax money.”

John Goodwin, Assistant Director of Communications, Rebecca Long, Director, Legislation & Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission contributed to this report.