Our hearts go out to those who have been affected by the wildfires in Sonoma, Napa and elsewhere in California. We have been moved by stories of the generosity and courage shown by first responders, neighbors and strangers alike.

Among some of the more surprising stories to come out of this emergency is the widespread use of prison labor in fire fighting. In the last few weeks, former Richmond mayor and current Lt. Governor candidate Gayle McLaughlin has sought to raise critical awareness about prison fire-fighting, which she compares to slave labor. While praising all those who have risked their lives to fight the fires, she has also pointed out that California inmates work for wages as low as pennies a day. Firefighting prisoners earn $2 a day or $1 per hour during active fires.

“They’re volunteering to work, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be getting a fair wage,” McLaughlin said in an interview with Sacramento News & Review. “This is abuse of incarcerated individuals. A dollar an hour to stand at the frontlines of a wildfire is slave labor.”

Gayle favors ending private prisons, and a real minimum wage for all inmate labor, including inmate firefighters. To get involved in Gayle’s campaign, click here.

And to read more, check out the following articles:

Finally, for a list of grassroots organizations providing wildfire and hurricane relief, take a look at this resource from the Sunflower Alliance.

Worker cooperatives are businesses that are owned and controlled by the people who work in them. Co-ops provide a promising way for communities to create good, dignified jobs; and in the Bay Area, coops such as Arizmendi are long-standing community institutions.

Under the mayorship of Gayle McLaughlin, Richmond promoted co-ops in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis by creating a position to support the development of coops. Today, a relatively new organization, Cooperation Richmond, is continuing that mission by providing a range of services, including education, “matchmaking” for prospective cooperative starters and co-owners, coaching and a loan fund.

Want to learn more about how coops strengthen Richmond's economy, or interested in joining/starting a coop yourself?  Join Cooperation Richmond on Wednesday, October 25 from 5pm - 8pm at Rich City Rides Bike Skate Cooperative Shop (1500 MacDonald Avenue). Happy hour libations and snacks will be provided!

MOTION, that the RPA Steering Committee recommends that the Richmond City Council pass a resolution expressing that:

• Recognizing that North Richmond was excluded from Richmond due to racist housing policies of the past, the City of Richmond is willing to annex unincorporated North Richmond, if that's what North Richmond residents want to do.
• The City will initiate a process whereby North Richmond residents are asked if they want to be annexed.
• Under all circumstances, the will of North Richmond residents must be determined by a vote.  The City of Richmond should not initiate the annexation process with LAFCO unless and until North Richmond votes in favor of it.
• Prior to the vote, mailings and town hall meetings must be used to inform North Richmond residents, including non-voters, on all aspects of annexation and get their feedback.

The RPA is currently discussing the question about annexation of North Richmond, which was brought to the City Council on 9/26/17.  As an RPA member who has participated in many community activities in North Richmond over the past 15 years, I offer here some thoughts on this issue.

The Richmond city council should express its willingness in principle to annex unincorporated North Richmond, but only IF that's what the residents want.

The LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) annexation process can be initiated either by a petition of the unincorporated North Richmond voters, or by the City of Richmond.  If the residents themselves initiation the process, the City should cooperate with them and not stand in the way. 

Since a City initiated process with LAFCO would not guarantee a vote of the residents, the City should not initiate this process at this time.  It should first work with the County (which currently governs unincorporated North Richmond) to place an advisory measure on the June Ballot, to better ascertain the will of the residents, especially since annexation would result in tax increases.  This vote should include a ballot pamphlet listing all pertinent information and consequences of annexation (i.e. increases in property, sales, utility users taxes and business license fees, addition of rent control and just cause for eviction, addition of regulations allowing for cannabis businesses, potentially streamlined municipal services) and be preceded by an extensive community outreach and engagement campaign.  

Historical/geographical context:

The history of North Richmond is based on overtly racist housing policies and practices of the past.  Both North Richmond and Parchester Village were designated in the '40's and '50's as acceptable locations for African Americans, who were barred from living in most other parts of Richmond.  Both areas are isolated by train tracks, far from services and business districts, and downwind from industrial pollution.

Since then, Parchester Village has become part of the City of Richmond and over a third of North Richmond's residential areas are also in the City of Richmond (Shields Reid Neighborhood).  Both areas are home to many very low income people of color to this day.  The residents in both areas have actively and successfully advocated for improvements, via the North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council, or MAC, (for unincorporated areas), the Shields Reid Neighborhood Council, the North Richmond Mitigation Fund (a City/County run effort at blight removal and community engagement funded by the solid waste transfer station), and the Parchester Village Neighborhood Council.  The North Richmond MAC and West County Toxics Coalition successfully advocated for bringing the County Health Clinic in North Richmond after a toxic release incident at General Chemical in the '90's.

Ongoing issues plaguing the community of North Richmond, both City side and County side are poverty, environmental injustice, and economic racism. Annexation by itself won't necessarily address these big issues, which should be cause for concern and action at all levels, city, county, state and federal.  And North Richmond residents need to be partners in any decisions aimed at improving their conditions. 

Key stakeholders 

According to local and regional ordinances, the primary stakeholder is the body of registered voters in unincorporated North Richmond, who should be primary decision makers in this process.  Additional stakeholders who would be impacted by any change in status and whose input should be sought include: residents of unincorporated North Richmond who are not registered voters (i.e., non-US citizens, parolees and youth), non-residents who work in unincorporated North Richmond (incl. business, non-profit and government employees), non-resident property owners, and non-resident business owners.  It's not clear from the very skimpy report on community meetings to what extent any of these additional stakeholders have been reached out to.

Two more key stakeholders are Contra Costa County via its elected Board of Supervisors, that currently governs this area and provides all municipal services, and the City of Richmond via its elected City Council, that would be proposing to assume the responsibility for governing this area and providing municipal services.  Oddly, the fiscal impact report done for the City by Willdan Financial Services fails to analyze the impacts to the County (positive and negative) of annexing North Richmond to the City of Richmond, which would be helpful to have for comparison purposes.

Resident input:

The residents of unincorporated North Richmond should have a primary say in any decision about annexation to Richmond.  At the 9/26/17 city council meeting, in spite of Mayor Butt's extensive work on promoting this concept, not a single resident of unincorporated North Richmond came to speak in favor of annexation.  And none of the three speakers on this item currently live in unincorporated North Richmond.  

Additional questions to ask:  Of the 10-35 attendees at each of the 5 community meetings held thus far, as indicated in the fiscal impact report, how many current residents of unincorporated North Richmond?  Of the seven MAC members (appointed by Supervisor Gioia), how many are current residents of unincorporated North Richmond?  If the people Gioia has appointed to the MAC are seen as representing the views of residents, the vote of the MAC on annexation--3 against, 2 abstain, 1 in favor and 1 absent (allegedly having expressed views in favor)--is one indication of the community being unwilling to be annexed to Richmond at this time.  An advisory ballot measure preceded by extensive community engagement and information sharing could provide a more broader and deeper picture of the community’s views.  If the community clearly desires annexation, we should move forward with it.  If not, we should hold off.

Fiscal impact:

I have additional questions and concerns about some aspects of the fiscal impact report regarding how the annexation would actually be implemented, but that can wait until after the primary question is resolved of how resident input will be achieved.

Recommendation:

The Richmond City Council should pass a resolution expressing the following: 

• Recognizing that North Richmond was excluded from Richmond due to racist housing policies of the past, the City of Richmond is willing to annex unincorporated North Richmond, if that's what North Richmond residents want to do.
• The City will initiate a process whereby North Richmond residents are asked if they want to be annexed.  
• Under all circumstances, the will of North Richmond residents must be determined by a vote.  The City of Richmond should not initiate the annexation process with LAFCO unless and until North Richmond votes in favor of it.
• Prior to the vote, mailings and town hall meetings must be used to inform North Richmond residents, including non-voters, on all aspects of annexation and get their feedback.

[Photo: Doug Harris]

In previous Tom Butt e-forums, the Mayor tried to tear down Marilyn Langlois, a long-time progressive activist and one of the RPA's endorsed candidates for the vacant City Council seat.  It was hard to see a sitting mayor sling mud, but Marilyn rose above it, and many of us dismissed the incident as a distasteful but not totally unexpected example of what happens when a person seeks political office in Richmond.

The e-forum Mayor Butt sent this past week was different. It shows that the Mayor will cross any line to further his political career. In his missive, he admits to running a campaign to discredit and destroy two more Richmond progressive activists, Claudia Jimenez and Eli Moore.  Supposedly acting on a tip from a neighbor, the Mayor himself began investigating whether Claudia and Eli were breaking Richmond rental law while away on sabbatical.  He went as far as to contact Eli's employer, supposedly to ask if UC Berkeley knew anything about Eli's rental practices! More likely, Mayor Butt was hoping Eli would be discredited, disciplined, or fired from his job.  When his e-forum describing all this went public, people began to criticize the Mayor on social media for misusing his power as an elected official to harass people for political gain.  Mayor Butt himself responded to say he was trying to "drain the swamp," invoking the words of Donald Trump.       

Eli and Claudia have both written public responses to Mayor Butt. 

Why is Mayor Butt so angry?  Claudia advocated for the Richmond rent control laws that Butt opposed.  And earlier in the week Eli had the audacity to express reservations about the economic impact of the ferry project that Butt has championed.  Those two things, plus the fact they are members of the RPA, were enough to earn them a spot on the mayor's enemy list. Butt is convinced that he must destroy the the Richmond progressive community in order to win the mayor's seat again.  In writing this, I am keenly aware that the Butt family is now pouring through my records looking for dirt on me and my family, googling the phone number of my employer, trying to decide if I am worthy of an e-forum attack -- it's an unpleasant feeling, and not one any of us should have.  

Let's tell Mayor Butt that his abuse of power has not gone unnoticed and will not be tolerated.  You can email him at [email protected], call him at 510-620-6581, or post a message on his Facebook page. 

The 2017 Bay Area Mural Festival brings together 11 master muralists and two East Bay youth groups through a series of artist residencies and workshops. This year, the festival comes to Richmond and culminates in the painting of 11 environmentally themed murals.

One of the murals is located on the Civic Center Street side of the RPA office/ Bobby Bowens Progressive Center (2540 Macdonald Ave.). Artist Carla Wojczuk 's theme  incorporates environmental sustainability and  housing justice.

On October 7, the Richmond Progressive Alliance Arts & Culture Action Team and the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project (AEMP) hosted a Community Power Mapping workshop for Richmond residents which was incorporated into the mural.

Come on down and check out the mural’s progress! Even if you missed the workshop on Saturday, folks are invited to come inside the Bobby Bowens Progressive Center to add a story and location to the map. It can be a story of a memory, person, or place that they appreciate most. 

And speaking of Bobby Bowens, last month the RPA co-hosted a great event celebrating the life, work and legacy of Black Panther Bobby Bowens. Bobby’s sister and niece were among the many who were gathered. True to the spirit of the Black Panthers, the event also included a giveaway of 100 care bags to those in need. Thanks to everyone who helped make this possible, especially Bill Jennings.

[Photo: sketch of housing justice mural, copyright Carla Wojczuk]

Governor Brown recently signed into law AB 291 (Chiu), the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act, which will go into effect on January 1, 2018.  In the context of Trump’s election and the escalating housing crisis in the Bay Area, too many tenants found themselves having to choose between the risk of homelessness and the risk of deportation if they stood up for their rights. The law prohibits landlords from disclosing information about a tenant’s immigration status in order to pressure them to move, and also makes discrimination based on immigration status illegal.

Thanks to the efforts of the RPA and our allies we now have rent control and ‘just cause’ eviction in Richmond. The new 5-member Rent Board began work in April setting up what is, in essence, a housing court system. We approved a budget and hired a super-qualified Executive Director, Nicolas Traylor, who is a Richmond resident.

The Rent Board approved, and the City Council approved, a maximum rent increase limit, for rent-controlled units, of 3.4% for 2016 and 2017.

And we assessed a very reasonable fee of $97 per unit per year for those landlords subject to ‘just cause,’ saving many landlords money in the long run as they won’t need an attorney to evict a bad tenant.

But more hard work is ahead in the coming months. As the only tenant on the Rent Board, I need your voice. The Rent Board will be voting on these important issues that will decide the balance of power between landlords and tenants:

Banking in August: ‘Banking’ is defined as the ability of rental property owner to raise the rent up to the “Maximum Allowable Rent” level after deferring past cost-of-living increases. In other words, if the landlords do not take the cost-of-living rent increase that they would have otherwise had a right to take, can they “bank” the increase and add it on to the rent in later years? Should it be allowed? Should there be limits?

Pass-Through in September: Can landlords pass along some of the $97 annual fee to tenants? Many of the rent control programs in California allow half of the fee to be passed along to tenants. Who can better afford the fee? Who will make most use of the Rent Board?

Capital Improvements in October:  Under what conditions can landlords raise rents to pay for capital improvements to the property? Where is the balance between keeping up the housing stock and losing affordable housing? This is an extremely complex regulatory question that will likely require a special session of the Rent Board.

If you care about one or more of these issues, please attend Rent Board meetings and speak during the public comment period. The Rent Board meets in the City Council Chambers on the 3rd Wednesday of each month at 4 P.M. (except the August, 2017 meeting has been moved to the 4th Wednesday, August 23rd). Here are the current meeting dates:

Wednesday, August 23rd
Wednesday, September 20th
Wednesday, October 18th

For more information about on the meeting agenda and any schedule changes check out the City of Richmond Rent Board web page.

In 1988, at the 70^th convention of the American Federation of Teachers, its President, Albert Shanker, proposed to reform the public school system through the formation of community-based, teacher-run Charter Schools. In 1991, the first Charter School Law was enacted in Minnesota. California followed with the “1992 Charter School Act.” Today, in California there are approximately 1,200 schools serving half a million students. In 2016-2017, the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) enrolled 4,577 in 11 charter schools; in 2017-2018, charter school enrollment is expected to be around five thousand students or approximately 15% of the District’s student population.

Apparently, progressive teachers and community activists were not the only ones attracted to Shanker’s neoliberal utopia. Only six years after the initial call for reform, academic bureaucrats, philanthropic entrepreneurs and plain corporate scammers took over the popular movement for school reform. To his credit, Shanker was among the first to denounce the corporate-bureaucratic take over. In “Where We Stand”, his weekly column in the New York Times, July 3, 1994, he denounced the Detroit School District for “…giving $4 million—for starters—to a group of people who are eager for public funds but could care less about public education.”

Based on the legal fiction that charters are “public schools”, they receive public funds on a per pupil basis. In 2016-2017, charters received $46 million. In addition, out of the General Fund, Local Control Funding Formula and Title II monies, the WCCUSD paid an additional $48 million for, among other things, the salaries of charter teachers, administrators and staff, instructional materials, and professional development. Thus, in 20116-2017, the subsidy to the charters added to $94 million. If pending petitions for new charters or for the expansion of existing ones are approved by either the district, the county or the state, the subsidy to the corporate charter school “reform” movement could well gobble up more than half of our district’s annual budget.

The hemorrhage must stop!