Dec 18 2012

Home Invasion on Scenic Avenue in Central Piedmont

At about 8 p.m. on Wednesday, December 12, the son of a Piedmont family went out of their house to look for his dark glasses in the family car parked in front of the house on Scenic Avenue.   Although he noticed three African-American men nearby, he “didn’t think much of it.” They were armed and soon forced him at gunpoint to lead them back into the house.  One of the men located his father reading in an upstairs bedroom and surprised him with a gun to his head. They moved very quietly through the house and found the mother in the laundry room.  The family members were forced to lie face down in the kitchen with the father’s legs tied up.  While one of the trio stood guard over the family in the kitchen, the others searched the house for valuables.  They took money, iPhones, laptops, jewelry, and a few other valuables.  Once they were gone, the family called the police at about 8:30pm.

Not knowing what had happened, an alert Piedmonter a block away, was suspicious when the three men carrying the loot ran past and jumped in a parked car.  Following them briefly, the neighbor obtained the license number of the car.  Oakland police soon found the car abandoned on Shattuck Avenue recovering some of the stolen jewelry.

REMINDER:  Be aware of activities and strangers in your surroundings at all times.

Dec 11 2012

OPINION: School Board’s Flat Tax Proposal Should Not Be Approved

 Resident Strongly Opposes Emergency Plan to Change Tax Structure –
I request that the Board get a hold of its senses and not try to impose, on 24 hours notice, a 9 year escalating extremely regressive new flat parcel tax on Piedmont taxpayers.  The proposal on your special meeting agenda tonight should be rejected.

 It is unseemly for you to be proposing to use last Thursday’s Borikas court  decision as a pretext for pillaging the majority of Piedmont homeowners, many seniors, to the significant benefit for many fewer big landowners, by redistributing taxes even more regressively from the large owners to the small owners.  

 You have time to wait for the dust to settle.  Will Alameda petition the Supreme Court for review? Likely, yes. Will the Supreme Court accept review?  If it does the Borikas opinion is vacated.  If there is no Supreme Court review and the Borikas decision remains the law, does that affect Measure B?  No. Measure B, passed 3-1/2 years ago, is no longer at risk as your own legal counsel surely knows and has told you.  If the Borikas opinion remains the law, will school districts statewide request the legislature to amend Government Code Section 50079?  Of course they will, and the Legislature will almost certainly revise the law to allow for a much more equitable tax structure than Measure A or your newly proposed flat parcel tax.

The proposed Measure A tax increases were already too steep for many taxpayers.  The present proposal would increase even more the taxes of 2,957 parcel owners, 73% of the parcels in Piedmont.  The taxes on the 27% of the largest parcels will go down.  The 347 largest land owners’ taxes, some of whom illegally pay absolutely nothing now on their vacant parcels under Measure B, already would have sweetheart preferential taxes under Measure A, and now their taxes would be cut by a third. The 87 smallest lots, smaller than 1,000 sf will pay $2.40 or more a square foot, while the 347 largest lots of 15,000 sf or more will pay sixteen cents per square foot or less. 

The terribly regressive nature of the tax being proposed is astounding. It was bad enough that under proposed Measure A the 2000 sf lot paid 23 times per sf more than the 80,000 per sf.  Under your current proposal the 2000 sf lot will pay 40 times per sf more. Under  Measure A a 5,000 sf lot would pay 2.4 times per sf as the 20,000 lot, but now, under your new proposal, it would be 4 times.

And you are proposing that this be the tax for the next 9 years, with escalators and  with no senior exemption.  This is unconscionable. If you are in such a rush, why don’t you propose a fairer tax, such as a single tax rate imposed uniformly per square foot of parcel, instead of the severely regressive tax you have sprung up over night for Piedmont voters?  The simple fact is that there is no emergency to justify this tax monstrosity you are proposing to let loose on our community. You appear to be taking unfair and unnecessary advantage of a decision your lawyers must have know was coming and, presumably informed you of for the past several months.

There is no emergency except to take currently proposed Measure A off the ballot. 

There is plenty of time for the Piedmont School district to go to the legislature, as surely many school districts across the state will do, to modify the legislation in question.  Government Code Section 50079 was passed by the legislature and can be amended by the legislature, and the amendment can be made in plenty of time for Piedmont to craft a new tax that is consistent with amended legislation.  A new tax can go on the June or  November 2013 ballots or on the spring ballot in 2014.

Government Code Section 50079 presently does not permit, as Borikas has ruled, a different school tax rate for improved, unimproved, residential and commercial properties.  However, community college districts, as the Borikas court discussed, may tax improved and unimproved properties at different uniform rates. Also, other school districts tax these four different properties at different uniform rates, so Piedmont may join with other districts to request the Legislature to allow different uniform rates on such properties.  Why would the legislature not respond positively?

A senior exemption is legal (Borikas approved Alameda’s), has been adopted by nearly every comparable school district except Piedmont.  Piedmont needs one.  Why would Piedmont rush forward with this ill-conceived new tax with practically no realistic or fair opportunity for public input, severely and unnecessarily impacting a tax tired community with a continuation of Piedmont’s one of a kind penalty on seniors? 

Thomas D. Clark, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.


Dec 7 2012

Alameda County Residents Must Soon Bring Their Own Bags

Reusable Bag Ordinance goes  into effect January 1 –

Announcement by StopWaste 

OAKLAND, December 4, 2012 – When the Alameda County Waste Management Authority’s Reusable Bag Ordinance goes into effect January 1, 2013, grocery stores and many other retailers selling packaged foods and/or alcohol will be required to stop distribution of single-use bags at checkout. Recycled content paper or reusable bags may be provided if the retailer charges a minimum price of 10 cents per bag. To avoid the bag charge, customers will be encouraged to bring their own bag when shopping.

Adopted by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority in January of 2012, the Reusable Bag Ordinance will further the agency’s long-term waste reduction goals by helping to decrease the number of bags going to landfill. Plastic bags take hundreds of years to break down, causing a cumulative litter problem. The ordinance will also save cities money on litter and storm drain cleanup, which costs Alameda County jurisdictions approximately $24 million every year.

With the Reusable Bag Ordinance, Alameda County jurisdictions join the 51 other cities and counties in California – including San Mateo, San Francisco, San Jose and Los Angeles– working to decrease the number of single-use bags. All 14 cities and unincorporated Alameda County agreed to participate in the ordinance, increasing the number of jurisdictions with bag ordinances statewide by nearly 30 percent. “Plastic bags harm marine life, are difficult to recycle and are one of the most common litter items found in our creeks, storm drains and streets,” said Gary Wolff, P.E., Ph.D., Executive Director of StopWaste.Org. “By limiting the distribution of single-use bags and urging people to bring reusable bags, we expect to see far fewer plastic bags littering our cities in future years. One reusable bag can replace as many as 600 single-use bags over its lifetime.”

The Reusable Bag Ordinance affects most grocery stores, minimarts, convenience stores, pharmacies and other retailers that sell packaged foods, as well as stores that sell alcohol, in Alameda County. Stores are still permitted to provide free plastic bags to protect and transport produce, bulk food or meat from within a store to the checkout or cash register. Restaurants and take-out food establishments are exempt from the ordinance. WIC and food stamp customers are not subject to the bag charge.

In preparation for the ordinance going into effect January 1, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority has been providing stores with resources and educational materials on the ordinance and conducting countywide outreach to help consumers and retailers prepare for the changes.

Here are tips shoppers can use to remember their reusable bags:

  • Hang a few reusable bags on the coat rack or near the front door
  • Keep a few reusable bags in your car
  • Keep a reusable bag at your office or place of work
  • Keep compact reusable bags in your purse, backpack or pocket

More information is available at ReusableBagsAC.org.

Nov 20 2012

City Settles FOMC Lawsuit with Payment of $30,000

News Release from Friends of Moraga Canyon-

Piedmont and Friends of Moraga Canyon Agree to Settle Lawsuit.

In a win for preservation of Piedmont’s Blair Park in Moraga Canyon, the City of Piedmont and the non-profit Friends of Moraga Canyon (FOMC) have reached agreement to settle a lawsuit filed by FOMC against the City Council for approving a sports field project in the park. The Council rescinded its approval of the project in May 2012, and the City and FOMC subsequently agreed to negotiate a settlement of the lawsuit outside of court.

The agreement calls for the City to pay a total of $30,000: $15,000 to cover a portion of FOMC’s attorney fees, and $15,000 to retain a landscape consultant to develop a landscape improvement plan for Blair Park and to implement the plan.

The intent of the plan is to preserve the park’s healthy native trees, remove dead or dying trees, and gradually replace removed trees with more appropriate species.  The plan will include improving the existing pedestrian trail, eradicating invasive plants, and identifying drought-tolerant plants and ground covers to “create an attractive setting for park users and enhance habitat for birds and other wildlife.”

The landscape consultant selected by the City must have experience in “creating and/or implementing plans for natural ‘open space’ parks similar to Blair Park.” FOMC will have an opportunity to comment on the scope of the consultant’s work plan and on the plan, itself, before it is approved or implemented.  Once the landscape plan is approved, the City will use remaining funds from the settlement agreement — and any additional money the City decides to allocate — to implement the plan.

“We are very pleased with this agreement,” said FOMC President Jim Semitekol. “Our goal from the outset has been to save Blair Park as a small slice of natural open space for all Piedmont residents and visitors to enjoy, to preserve the habitat for wildlife, and provide an attractive gateway to the City of Piedmont.

“We are grateful to have the lawsuit behind us,” he added, “and we look forward to working with the City to develop and implement a successful plan that truly preserves and enhances Blair Park.”

The $30,000 settlement agreement will be paid out of funds previously deposited with the City by the Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO), the organization that proposed developing the Blair Park sports field project.  As part of an agreement for project approval, the City required PRFO to reimburse the City for costs in developing the project and to indemnify the City for potential legal actions against the project approval.

To see the full Settlement Agreement and City of Piedmont News Release, go to: www.ci.piedmont.ca.us

Nov 20 2012

LWV Discusses Crime and Punishment in Alameda County

 District Attorney Nancy O’Malley will speak – Wednesday, December 12, 2012

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont will host its annual holiday program and luncheon on Wednesday, December 12.  The public is invited to the program featuring Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County District Attorney, who will discuss crime in Piedmont and in Oakland with its decreased police force and high rate of violent crime, the effect that Proposition 30 public safety funds may have on crime, and how Alameda County will handle the transfer of prisoners from state facilities to county facilities.

The event will take place at 131 La Salle Avenue, Piedmont, with coffee at 10:30am and keynote speaker Nancy O’Malley at 11am.  The free program is followed by the luncheon from 12:15 -1 pm.  Advance reservations for the luncheon are required: send check for $25 payable to LWV Piedmont, to 40 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611 before December 8.

As Alameda County District Attorney, Nancy O’Malley heads up one of the more progressive, innovative district attorney’s offices in the country and is the first woman to hold this position in Alameda County.

O’Malley is a nationally recognized expert on issues involving violence against women and interpersonal violence.  Among her accomplishments are creating:

•          the Alameda County Family Justice Center for victims of family violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, sexual exploitation of minors and child abuse;

•          a diversion program that treats sexually and commercially exploited minors arrested for prostitution;

•          a restitution program for crime victims that has become a model for the state.

Oct 25 2012

Much Ado About Vote by Mail Postage

Recommended postage for ballots ranges from $.45 to $1.50 –

The instructional insert sent with absentee ballots calls for  $.85 postage for Piedmonters’ vote-by-mail ballots for the November 6 election. However, the weight of the 2 ballots, plus envelope, for Piedmont voters is less than 2 ounces, for which the Post Office requires $.65 (one $.45 first class stamp plus a $.20 extra ounce stamp), not $.85.

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters website recommends the following postage for the November ballot:

Recommended Postage:
$ 0.85 for 2 to 3 ballot cards
$ 1.50 for 4 ballot cards

In Berkeley, there has been considerable confusion among Berkeley voters about how much postage to use for  their envelope containing four ballot cards.  The Berkleyside website has posted several articles on the subject.

City Manager Christine Daniel said the vote-by-mail ballot requires $1.50 in postage, according to County Registrar of Voters Dave Macdonald. … Mayor Tom Bates said he asked his wife, Senator Loni Hancock, to ask Secretary of State Debra Bowen about the mail-in ballots, and Bowen said a regular first-class stamp would do the trick.”

Berkeley Councilwoman Susan Wengraf  reported that, “I did call Dave Macdonald,” adding that he told her that, “regardless of what was on the ballot, it will be delivered.”

Voters confused by the postage issue can drop off their ballots at the office of the Alameda County registrar of Voters in Oakland, at 1225 Fallon St.  On election day, Nov. 6, voters can drop off ballots at any polling location until 8 p.m.

Oct 16 2012

OPINION: Measure Y Is Not a Tax Increase

 Tax Helps Pay for Many Special Elements in Piedmont –

Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1980, the residents of Piedmont have realized that for our community to have the things that we as a community value, we needed a City Services Tax.  Our city has had such a tax since 1980, and we have continuously renewed it for the past thirty-two years.  The tax is up for renewal this year and is on our ballot as MEASURE Y.  It will be at the end of your ballot and is not an increase over the past four years.  I urge you to vote YES ON MEASURE Y.  > Click to read more…

Oct 9 2012

Oct 24: Piedmont Resident Cliff Gardner Speaks on Death Penalty Prop 34

League of Women Voters program: Should California Kill the Death Penalty?

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont will host a program featuring Piedmont resident, Cliff Gardner, who will discuss Proposition 34, a measure on the November 6 California ballot.  The program will be held at 40 Highland Avenue in Piedmont on Wednesday, October 24, 2012, from 7-8:30 p.m. The public is invited.

Proposition 34, the SAFE California Act, would replace the death penalty in California with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

With over 30 years of practice in criminal law, Cliff Gardner has extensive experience representing clients in post-conviction proceedings, specializing in death penalty appeals and habeas corpus. He has represented clients in many high profile cases, including Scott Peterson and one of the Menendez brothers. He has tried more than a dozen cases before the California Supreme Court and briefed and argued several in the United States Supreme Court. In 1999, he co-authored Proposition 36 – the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, which was approved by 61 percent of California voters. An advocate of abolishing the death penalty, Mr. Gardner will talk about why this is an important proposition to pass.

The League of Women Voters of California is endorsing Proposition 34.

Editors Note:  The position taken is that of the League of Women Voters. The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures.

 

Oct 8 2012

OPINION: 30 Years of Yes Changes to No

Piedmont resident urges a “slimmed down” City parcel tax –

While I supported the Parcel Tax Renewal for the past 30 years,  this year I am urging my friends to vote “NO” on Measure Y.

My objections to the Measure Y tax are twofold:  > Click to read more…

Oct 7 2012

Molly Morse Wins 500,000 Euro Award in Green Challenge

Piedmont Native’s Green Business Plan Honored –

Molly Morse, who grew up in Piedmont, is the 2012 winner of the Postcode Lottery Green Challenge, the world’s largest annual award for sustainable entrepreneurship.  Morse received €500,000 ($630,000) to develop her promising green business.  Her company, Mango Materials, uses bacteria to turn methane gas into affordable biodegradable plastic.

A Piedmont High School grad, Morse‘s interest in science began during her early school years at Havens Elementary School. At Cornell University,  she majored in Civil Engineering, and then earned a Master of Science degree at Stanford University in Design Construction Integration (DCI).  Her interests led her to research the anaerobic degradation of bio-composites for the building industry.

Two other finalists, Daan Weddepohl of Amsterdam and Nick Gerritsen from New Zealand, won $125,000 (€100,000) each for their CO2-reducing projects.