By Nancy Jewell Cross

On State Ballot HOUSING AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND $2,100,000,000 General Obligation Bond, and on Local Ballot BART SEISMIC SAFETY BOND $1,050,000,000 30-Years G.O. Bond

Seismic safety, yes! But imposing on affordability of shelter for people—owners directly and renters indirectly the costs which can be paid from existing Bart resources which aggravate housing unaffordability, no!

About 6%-7% of residents rides Bart. High “fares” are a deterrent. Fewer than half of ticket purchasers use Bart’s complimentary car storage. Employees of tenants of big office buildings and other enterprises surrounding rarely buy Bart tickets. ---But using Bart’s parking lot is another story! Bart fares are high because they include the cost of not only what’s needed for train travel, but the cost, higher, of 42,000 vehicle parking spaces in 400 or so acres.

What is the value of Bart’s complimentary car park real property? Try on: In lieu vehicle space to land developers in Palo Alto to buy in 2002 is $50,994. Rental value at 10% a year is $5,099.40, $425/month, and $14/day.

Nothing bars Bart from collecting for use of its land at the market rate, for vehicle storage. Using the carefully calculated current rate in Palo Alto, Bart would net $214,175,000 annually and in the 30 years anticipated for three bonds $6,425,250,000! This is enough to cover $1,050,000,000 for seismic retrofit and $2,100,000,000 for the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund—with more than half remaining! Bart could put the leftover in reserve for contingency of lessened demand for parking at market rate. As for some of the revenue going into housing and emergency shelter, the transfer could be justified as mitigation for Bart'’ having pursued policies intentionally to raise land value predictably by scarcity contributing to the shelter crisis in California which the Trust Fund addresses. (510) 792-8523 CLEAN AIR TRANSPORT SYSTEMS Regional & Interregional Developers By Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, Chief Executive Officer Endorsed filed: Registrar of Voters, County of Alameda 02AUG 16 PM 5:18 RECEIVED/FILED Deputy Registrar

At the time the Deputy Registrar in charge examined and filed the foregoing Primary Argument, I inquired her interest in evidence of the existence of C.A.T.S. as a bona fide organization and of my authority to speak for C.A.T.S. As usual, the Registrar of Voters himself was nowhere to be neither seen nor accessible on my request—also never in person to me even to speak by telephone. The telephone number he has for the public connects only to a recorder. She shrugged disinterest to my offer, she had been instructed, “until after” the Registrar has determined “his selection”. Informing her that it was not every day that I brought “evidence” with me, I nevertheless exposed to her for what the experience was worth, evidence with original writings that no fewer than hundreds of people associated themselves with CLEAN AIR TRANSPORT SYSTEMS and, further, that they authorized me to speak on their behalf on the subject of the Primary Argument just filed. Her response was consistent with sufficiency of, and no deficiency in, my “proof”.

California Elections Code statute relevant here: In circumstance of more than one primary argument filed for or against a measure, in jurisdictions in which county or city charter has not superseded general law on the matter, if an argument filed bears the signature of a bona fide organization, that argument or one of arguments including the signature of a at least one bona fide organization has for the single spot, priority by statute over every argument that does not—leaving no discretion to the County Registrar of Voters “to select”. Only as between arguments on the same measure on the same side, does State law permit the Registrar of Voters discretion to choose or select among submittals filed.

In 1986 the then Alameda County Registrar of Voters determined between two arguments on the First Measure B, consistently with the above, checking her application of the law with Alameda County Counsel prior to announcing the result to representatives of the signers, favorably to C.A.T.S., based on evidentiary showing comparable to that above described on August 16, 2002. In 2000, the current Alameda County Registrar of Voters took for Argument Against Measure B, in contrast, had printed in pre-election materials an argument subscribed by two men, individually, instead of the other submitted subscribed by a bona fide organization. There was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to prevent the default of statutory observance. However, in his General Election materials the present Registrar of Voters for the first time had Guidelines for argument submitters, particularly describing how an organization signs an argument, and distinguishing it from the signature of an individual, identifying herself or himself with organization in whatever capacity.

In the days following the August 16, 2002 close of filing for arguments on measures on the ballot for the General Election on November 5, 2002, the Alameda County Registrar of Voters kept an earlier submitted Primary Argument Against Measure BB subscribed by five individuals close to his chest until on his own initiative he could reach their contact person to propose their changing, and offer them opportunity and permission to alter, their signature composite to include an organizational signature or signatures and he process altered documents backdated. That accomplished, he instructed his chief deputy to prepare and send letters to the contacts for the two Primary Arguments Against Measure BB, announcing his “selection” of the argument which at the time of its filing and close of filing bore only individual signatures.

CITY OF OAKLAND MEASURE II (two i’s capitalized), SYNOPSIS OF MEASURE II, SIGNERS OF THE PRIMARY ARGUMENT FOR MEASURE II, THE PRIMARY ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE II AS FILED, AN EXCERPT FROM THE PRIMARY ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE II, AND REBUTTAL TO THE PRIMARY ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE II AS FILED.

Measure II: Do you authorize the City of Oakland to increase its transient occupancy tax surcharge 3% for five years in addition to the current 11%, total 14%?

Signers of the Primary Argument in Favor of Measure II: Jerry Brown, Mayor of Oakland, Robert L. Jackson, Pastor of Acts Full Gospel Church, and Henry L. Gardner, Former Oakland City Manager.

PRIMARY ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE II

California state and local governments are trying to raise money in times hard for many people. –To raise billions, from us! Bonds offer the wealthy tax-exemption, cost us 40% more. Prices shock us as increasing fees and taxes insert themselves.

The price of a hotel or motel room commonly includes the cost of vehicle storage, complimentarily. The cost is not credited to a non-user. The land for a room and a car space is about equal, except that and 18-wheler may take 10x as much space as a human sleeping room, with the cost to provide put onto other tenants’ bills!

If we are going to get human shelter for everyone, we have to unbundle imposing complimentary vehicle storage costs onto other people seeking shelter only for themselves. We need to think carefully whether we want to tax shelter in a hotel or motel because people may be residents of another county, city, or country, or if of this city, county, and country, unable by homeless status to vote in the practicalities—easy scapegoats for city burdens.

Also visitors who may not vote here may spend here, and the higher from the tax, avoid coming. Loss of tourist business may break businesses we cherish! Churches’ and police resources to help persons in desperate circumstances with vouchers for a night or two or a few weeks will dry sooner with this insensitive-to-shelter as such tax.

Concept complimentary land use, if any, priority for human shelter! Vote No on this measure! (510) 792-8523

CLEAN AIR TRANSPORT SYSTEMS Regional & Interregional Developers By Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, Chief Executive Officer ___________

The Primary Argument in Favor of Measure II near its conclusion says: . . . Fighting crime, helping troubled youth, reducing domestic violence and assisting returning parolees simply cannot be done without more money. Having our visitors pay a little more on their hotel room bills is a small price to pay for increased personal safety and public well-being.

Please help keep Oakland on the move. Vote the revenue needed to support our violence prevention programs. . . .

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE II

OAKLAND ON THE MOVE, RIGHT ON!

Try on Bicycles! Efficient, fun, practical. But pain from theft, destruction. Of 300 reported to police, stolen, ten recovered. Building guard, “Leave your bicycle outside!” --Claptrap generated by a faceless administrator holed up inside. “I want to read in the library, shop, go other places without a car, be heard at city hall, without jeopardizing my bicycle. If I can’t, I feel bad, rejected, stay home, watch TV, get a car, maybe shoot, speed.”

An alternative: Youth, adults construct  Bicycles Inside Hitching Posts. See Caltrain’s Bicycle Car, other city council chambers bicycle friendly inside: Palo Alto, Union City, Menlo Park, Newark, San Jose. Oakland’s City Hall, too, can be green! Bicycles replace cars when bicycles can always be within owners’ sight and ready reach.

 Automated Bicycle Garage! Compared with a vehicle garage: for the land/space $106 vs. $945, 1:9; and for the construction cost/space $1600 vs. $8514, 1:5.

Try on buses! Tell AC Transit to use

 Local bus manufacturer for new buses federally funded 80% and local labor instead of shipping $61,000,000+ and XXXXX jogs to Belgium, 100% from local operating and maintenance funds—causing AC Transit deficit, fare hikes, and service cuts!

 Small, quiet, non-diesel buses, ¼$$ to buy, ½$$ to operate, and without diesel chemical toxins and noise—85 dB! Riders’-, neighborhoods’-, and taxpayers’-friendly.

Enhanced mobility and access options bring new vistas.

Walk the talk, No on II and yes on the above!

CLEAN AIR TRANSPORT SYSTEMS Regional & Interregional Developers By Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, Chief Executive Officer

__________________________

City of Oakland Measure II Primary Argument Against and Rebuttal above in full were reproduced as shown, with only a mite of garbling from the phrase, “Riders’-, neighborhoods’-, and taxpayers’-friendly”’s being inserted in the middle of the preceding sentence, and restructuring of the signature to put my name first, identified by position, followed by CLEAN AIR TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, Regional & Interregional Developers. The Oakland City Clerk Deputy in charge said it was an organizational argument notwithstanding because it would otherwise not have been filed I was not a resident of Oakland.

When I brought C.A.T.S. Primary Argument Against Measure II to the Oakland City Hall, I presented to the Deputy Clerk in charge for examination the same evidence I had on the Friday before to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Deputy in charge. The City Clerk Deputy immediately acknowledged the relevance thereof to her duties, examined the evidence I offered, manifestly in authenticity in what was presented, and also thhe sufficiency in elements to prove what was by law required to justify filing C.A.T.S. argument signed by me as its Chief Executive Officer.

She was no less particular in deciding whether to accept other election arguments. A man introduced to the City Clerk Deputy in charge by no less than Mayor Jerry Brown as an executive in the Oakland Chamber of Commerce was there to subscribe an election argument in the chamber’s name. ---But,” Do you have something in writing to show your authority to sign the election argument for the Oakland Chamber of Commerce?” --The mayor’s introduction and presence notwithstanding. The deadline for filing was imminent and there was no time to procure such writing. The City Clerk Deputy in charge said she would not accept his subscribing for the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, but he could sign the argument as an individual. On another occasion, I witnessed her challenging signatures on a Rebuttal argument for lack of authorization from every signer of the Primary Argument, notwithstanding that some, but critically not all, were at the City Clerk’s counter. The existence of CLEAN AIR TRANSPORT SYSTEMS--certainly at Oakland City Hall less known than the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, as well my authority to sign the argument I presented in its name, on the other hand, passed muster without question on first try!