Civil Liberties Panel Discussion, Berkeley

Panelists: Daniel Ellsberg, Birgitta Jonsdottir, Norman Solomon, Nadia Kayyali, Robert Jaffe (moderator)

video by David Curtis


Occupy Monsanto, Davis, CA

video from the Occupy Monsanto event in Davis, California


UC Berkeley Law, Graduation, Eric Holder

David Curtis attempts to enter the UC Berkeley Law School Graduation to question Eric Holder.


David Curtis testifies to the Assembly Committee on Elections & Redistricting

“I am David Curtis, of Marin County, California. I am with the Green Party. I oppose this measure which would require a specified number of votes, as it attempts to apply a performance criteria, an imposition of corporate mentality on a public process. This bill would prohibit write-ins. Prohibitionist devices historically fail under their own ill-conception. The write-in option acts as a fail-safe. Fail-safes are necessary when a system is so corrupted and polluted that the only recourse left is the fail-safe.”

“I would like to reserve time for addressing the other measure later”

(Later)

“The Green Party of California unconditionally opposes ACA9. The 2010 passage of Proposition 14 led to the fewest number of candidates on the ballot in 2012 from California’s smaller parties than at any time since 1966, when only the Democrats and Republicans were on the ballot. The resultant lack of diversity from Proposition 14 robs voters of political choice and ignores important perspectives.

ACA9 would make that worse, by eliminating one of the only routes to the general election ballot still available to five of California’s ballot qualified parties.

The argument that ACA9 is justified because it would carry-forward a prior 1% write-in primary threshold and therefore ACA9 would have “limited impact” is false. The past 1% threshold was discriminatory against California’s smaller parties whose membership was not large enough to practically reach the write-in requirement, and should have been modified to be a percentage of the registered party members in the electoral district in which a candidate was running.

But at that time, these same parties still had guaranteed general election ballot via the primary election ballot, which it utilized 99% of the time. Now that Proposition 14 has effectively taken that away, the only route to the ballot is via the write-in option in place today. That means the practical effect of ACA9 is to suffocate the remaining gasps of diverse political voice in the state.

In your hearing materials, it states that the six candidates who made the 2012 general election ballot via the write-in route received 13% to 36% of the general election ballot. Does this mean that 13% to 36% of the voters don’t matter? In most OECD countries with which the U.S. is compared, 13% to 36% of the vote would mean 13% to 36% of the seats in parliament. Here it doesn’t mean any seats. Should it also mean no voice?

Rather than further restricting voter choice, the GPCA is on record that Proposition 14 should be amended to restore write-in votes in general elections, a right we’d had pre-statehood, since the founding of the California Republic.

Putting ACA9 on the ballot instead would give impression that Proposition 14 works, and only needs tinkering to further minimize political voice and give the impression that the false general majorities rendered by Proposition 14 are valid.

The Green Party believes Proposition 14 has already proved to be the failure that many predicted….

(Chairman Fong interrupts and asks that the speaker close)

For these and other obvious reasons, the Green Party of California unconditionally opposes ACA9 and urges you to oppose this ill-conceived deform of our electoral system.” 1.

-David Curtis, 5/7/2013

1. Excerpts from the official GPCA letter of opposition, Alex Shantz and Sanda Everette co-signers


Cynthia McKinney, Ann Garrison, David Curtis

Ann Garrison and David Curtis question Cynthia McKinney in Santa Rosa, CA


PLAN Bay Area: Housing Element

(we) attended a Supervisor Adams house party tonight to discuss the Housing Element.

David Curtis The consensus in the room was some number of sites (are) green lighted, less than 200 units, mix of affordable/market rate housing. 3 story height limit.

Jimmy Fishbob Geraghty What about people outside the room? What did they think?

DC 200 of them get houses (in theory), the number is subject to change, it depends on the actual projects (like I have been saying for some months now.) I think the final number will be 200-500 get houses. (in theory) I gave her (Susan Adams) your messages don’t worry. She called me “Dave” though, which pisses me off.

JFG Never miss an opportunity to get pissed off. I’m surprised you missed the ABAG-MTC EIR comment meeting…I would’ve thought that stuff right up your alley.

DC (I’ve got competing meetings up the wazoo) Everyone in the room agrees that (any) school addition needs to be built in to the budget. The EIR is 1500 pages, have you read it? I am reading it still. It (The EIR) is mostly BS. My comment is: reject the EIR, build the (redacted) houses. Local control of the building of the (redacted) houses.

JFG The schools have a problem already, the poor people are not going to bail you out, rally to stop the screwing in that neighborhood…I’m not complaining about it. We always have local control… that nonsense is just a myth.

DC The builders of the houses will pay for the schools, period. As will the tax payers…as always. Developers pay for the schools. Basic concepts. This whole exercise is non-sense. Unfunded state-mandated BS. MANY people have tried to develop the properties. The ball has been dropped like ten times now. (Some of) The developers were there in the room. Got the whole thing. (Some of) The developers were there in the room. Got the whole thing.

JFG Depends on the laws, right now prop 13 lets newcomers support the old-timers and affordable developers have a pass, the price communities pay for not taking care of business.

DC Hoyt f-ed one of the sites with his ghetto dry cleaning business.

JFG Which developers were in the room?

JFG Names?

DC (Susan has a list) Lucas got fed up with the Nimbys.

JFG LOL, to keep the white shirts pressed for the oppressors.

DC Yeah, I have to type up the notes.

DC I think (name) recorded it.

JFG Was this a house meeting and was everyone aware of the recording?

DC This was a house meeting, some number were aware of the recording, two, I think two were aware of the recording. (Name) was sitting there holding her phone so, some number with IQs were aware of it. About 20 in the room total.

JFG I think that is illegal, everyone holds their phones in meetings nowadays. You need mind-reading skills to know what people are doing with them, not IQs.

DC I have no control over what an attorney does with her personal phone dude. Basic stuff. It was a private house meeting. The rules don’t apply here. Just like the fake (POTUS) debates…We could have handcuffed Adams to a chair. Totally legal.

JFG That is exactly where rules apply, public meetings are open game…

DC The house makes the rules. Just like Vegas.

JFG We know you have no control over her…

DC I took notes with a pen. Ask (name), she’s the attorney. I just make pretty drawings. The schools are maxed out. The developer pays for the schools. Which means Bridge is OUT. (One could be) begging some developers to submit plans now. But they won’t given the PLAN BS. The developers are saying Hoyt pays for clean up. Hoyt is a cheapskate, supposedly. Everybody is going to sit on their hands until the PLAN vote. Susan is only one vote, have to talk to two more Supes. Not in my job description at that point. (The Nimby’s are freaked out I took notes…LOL) Heavily FREAKING NIMBY ACTION LIVE RIGHT NOW.

Whitney Merchant ?

WM A nonprofit developer like Bridge does not need to pay for schools. Just like all the people living in Marinwood and Terra Linda were not required to build schools when there homes were built, thus creating the need for new schools. What you are proposing is absurd.

DC What is it you think I am proposing?

WM Bridge already bought the land. It would be very sad if they were in fact out because they are very skilled residential developers. The website you linked to was a very confusing conversation between you and Jimmy, but it appeared you suggested developers pay for new schools.

DC What I am suggesting will be coming through an attorney (not a posted blog conversation). I am a residential designer. I like houses.

WM Then what is your objection to Bridge?

DC OUT is too strong a word.

WM Alrighty, what is the best word then?

DC My objection is with a blanket zoning request that HOSES the whole County. The County is being hosed. HOSED is the correct word.

WM These are intentionally cryptic, meaningless sentences. Why don’t you just say what you mean exactly.

David Curtis The state-mandated zone overlay is a hose job. Is that clear?

DC 700 units in my ‘hood is a hose job. 200 units = not a hose job. Pretty Hills, the nimbys like the pretty hills.

WM I think the overlay zone in general is an excellent zoning designation, and I followed the county housing element quite closely for some time, I’m not sure what site you are referring to that calls for 700 units or even 200 units. What are you specifically talking about, St. Vincent’s?

DC 15 sites (total) in Lucas Valley Marinwood = 700 Units = Hose Job. Adams says it is down to 170 units = no hose job. (Hence the posting of the FB discussion)

WM The sites in your area are the Bridge site in Marinwood, St Vincent’s and Lucas. Of those, only Marinwood has a chance in hell of being developed, so NO HOSE JOB.

DC (my comments are reflective of the) X number of people yelling on various websites.

DC YEAH NO HOSE JOBS! VIVA THE REPUBLIC! (imagine crowd chanting)

WM I don’t know how to respond since these are phrases that don’t seem to contain any clear meaning.

DC I agree with you, 200 units = no hose job, (but) 3000+ people agree to 170 UNITS (so we are maybe close to a deal-e-o)

DC (40yr resident Nimby’s) Here are (some) goals of Lucas Valley/Marinwood residents:

1. Protect the open space.

2. Cleanup Marinwood Plaza site.

3. Build 170 market rate/ affordable housing units.


Registering Greens in Point Reyes

Marin County Green Party members registering Greens in Point Reyes, CA