My assignment this week was to write a piece about the monumental storms that packed a wallop in Marin and Sonoma counties, but I needed a break from bad news.
Fortunately, I found a heartwarming story about a fairy, a stranded motorist and a bunny on a flooded road during a downpour.
To satisfy my editor, let me get this out of the way: The first 18 days of January delivered more than 22 inches of rain to Marin, while Sonoma County made it onto President Joe Biden’s list of areas eligible for FEMA funds. It was a mess all over the Bay Area, with flooded roads, mudslides, toppled trees and power outages.
Still, none of this discouraged Marcy Berman from braving an atmospheric river last week to transport a domesticated bunny named Lady Gray to a foster home in Muir Beach.
Berman, director of the nonprofit SaveABunny, admits she saw standing water on the road, but thought her truck would plow through it. After all, Lady Gray, a rescued rabbit disabled from severe neglect, required specialized care from the couple at the other end of the flooded street.
A driving miscalculation landed Berman’s truck stuck in the mud on the side of the road, tipping precariously, with the water continuing to rise ever so slightly.
“We were really at a steep angle,” Berman said.
Standing less than five feet tall, Berman considered the depth of the water and her chance of carrying Lady Gray and the bunny’s accoutrements to safety. She decided to stay in her vehicle, where she could keep the heat on for her paralyzed passenger while she called for help. West Marin’s spotty cell service put a kink in that plan.
Two surfers came by and tried to push the truck out of the mud. No go. Then a fire truck rolled up; however, Berman, determined to get Lady Gray to the medical foster home, told the firefighters that she was fine.
Some might question Berman’s stubbornness at this juncture, yet it’s through her tenacity that SaveABunny has rescued 5,000 rabbits over the last 24 years. She wasn’t giving up on this one.
Lady Gray, a rabbit rescued from severe neglect by SaveABunny, munches on nutritious greens.
“I just let go and asked the universe for help,” Berman said. “Ten minutes later, a pretty blonde lady with a lovely accent shows up in an SUV. A fairy.”
Not only did Penny Macphail’s ethereal beauty and Irish lilt inform Berman that her rescuer was otherworldly, but a sign on the SUV confirmed it: “www.goodfairy.org.”
Indeed, Macphail is a real-life good fairy. Although she ventured from her home in Sleepy Hollow on this stormy day to swim with her dog at Muir Beach, Macphail wasn’t surprised to happen upon someone who needed to be saved.
“I run a nonprofit called Good Fairy that matches volunteers with people who need help,” Macphail said. “The funny thing is that I am constantly rescuing people, because once you start looking, you see people in need.”
Good Fairy has helped hundreds of people since its inception three years ago, but Macphail herself attracts those in need. She recently found a five-year-old boy at a gas station after his father accidentally drove away without him. It seems she’s always in the right place at the right time, which is even more remarkable considering she’s disabled with limited mobility.
“I’m seizing the day and making the best of everything I can,” Macphail said.
Together, on the flooded road in the pouring rain, the two women managed to move the bunny and her supplies into Macphail’s SUV and then to the medical foster home.
One will never know whether Macphail appeared because Berman wished for her or because Macphail keeps an eye out for anyone needing help. Either way, both say they wholeheartedly agree with the other line on the sign on Macphail’s vehicle: “I believe in fairies!”
The sign on MacPhail’s SUV explains why magical moments occur when she arrives.
A local government agency in Marin seems to have a knack for targeting the most defenseless people in a vulnerable community of mariners, including a pregnant woman, seniors and people with disabilities.
During the last six months, at least three mariners living aboard their boats anchored out in Richardson Bay have filed federal lawsuits against the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) for threatening to seize and destroy their vessels. The basis for the RBRA’s proposed actions is that the boats are marine debris. The boat owners vehemently dispute the claim.
On Jan. 4, hearings for two different cases filed by mariners were held before Judge William H. Orrick in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. While the RBRA retained an outside law firm, the mariners aren’t paying a dime in legal costs. Daniel Knight, who is 65 and disabled, has a pro bono attorney. Robert Roark, 76, is a pro se litigant, meaning he is representing himself.
Both Knight and Roark assert the RBRA, as well as other numerous named and unnamed defendants, are attempting to seize and destroy their boats. Should the RBRA succeed in taking and crushing their homes, the men allege the agency will violate their civil rights and force them into homelessness.
Several constitutional amendments protect Knight and Roark, according to their lawsuits. The Fourth Amendment prevents the government from performing unreasonable searches and seizures, while the Fifth Amendment guarantees the government cannot seize private property without just compensation. The 14th Amendment bars the government from depriving people of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
Attorney David Breemer, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization specializing in cases involving constitutional rights, is representing Knight and believes the definition of “reason” will be crucial to the case.
“In a legal search and seizure, generally speaking, a warrant should be obtained—but not always,” Breemer said in an interview with the Pacific Sun. “This is not just a warrant issue. The ultimate issue: What is reasonable? It’s unreasonable to seize property without due process, which is the notice and hearing before they take your property. You can’t give a person 10 days to move out of their residence. And there is no payment for the property offered here.”
Orrick seems to agree with some of Knight’s allegations, as he issued a preliminary injunction against the RBRA, prohibiting the agency from seizing the boat. In addition, he set a trial date for October, indicating he thinks the case has some merit.
Like Knight, Roark also received a 10-day written notice that his boat will be seized. In addition, RBRA Harbormaster Jim Malcolm verbally threatened to take the vessel, Roark said in an interview.
Roark contends he is anchoring out temporarily, until he completes some necessary repairs to his boat. Malcolm provided Roark with an application for a 30-day permit to anchor out in Richardson Bay, but Roark crossed out portions in red. One of Roark’s chief objections is that the permit states the “RBRA harbormaster is authorized to inspect the vessel at any time…”
“Parts of the application are unenforceable as written,” Roark said. “You cannot demand that someone give up their constitutional rights in order to gain a privilege. I’m not going to give away my civil rights for a parking permit.”
The RBRA refuses to negotiate on the terms of the permit and denies that any verbal threat was made to seize Roark’s boat. Orrick has twice declined to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the agency from taking Roark’s vessel; however, he said that the issue will be dealt with through normal litigation. No date has yet been set.
For years, the RBRA has placed 10-day warning notices on anchored-out boats, mostly with the marine debris claim. If the owner doesn’t remove their property from the Richardson Bay anchorage within the stated period, the boat is at risk of being seized and destroyed. The harbormaster frequently follows through on the notice.
The RBRA hires a marine surveyor to determine whether the boat is marine debris; however, critics say the surveyor usually doesn’t enter the vessel and doesn’t test equipment. The anchor-outs say the RBRA has crushed seaworthy vessels.
For example, in July, the RBRA seized a 32-foot sailboat that it declared was marine debris. The boat’s owner, Kaitlin Allerton, a youngwoman who has lived on the water in Sausalito for most of her life, left her boat to spend the last few months of her pregnancy on shore.
Initially, Federal Judge Maxine Chesney granted the RBRA permission to crush Allerton’s vessel, based on photos showing the boat covered in bird droppings, the surveyor’s report and the harbormaster’s inaccurate descriptions of the boat’s condition. While the RBRA had the boat stored at a marina in San Rafael, a crew of Allerton’s friends cleaned the boat. Chesney, who was presented with new photos, reversed her position. The parties subsequently reached an agreement, which included the RBRA returning the seaworthy vessel to Allerton.
Until recently, the boats were towed to the Army Corps of Engineers’ boat crushing facility in Sausalito. The vessels are now brought to other marinas around the bay to be destroyed, presumably because the boat owners have occasionally taken back their property from the Army Corps of Engineers, under the cover of darkness, and dropped anchor again in Richardson Bay.
However, most seized boats never make it back to the water. In 2010, there were 200 vessels anchored out. Then, in mid-2019, a state regulatory agency, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), pushed the RBRA to make haste with removing the boats. The RBRA responded by declaring more boats marine debris and enforcing a 72-hour limit for anchoring in the bay. The previous harbormaster whittled the number of vessels down to 135 by the end of 2020, despite the pandemic and lockdown. Just two years later, the RBRA estimates about 65 boats remain.
Under pressure from the BCDC, the RBRA signed an agreement in 2021 requiring that all boats anchored out in Richardson Bay must be removed by October 2026. With the anchor-out eradication date approaching, the RBRA continues to seize boats, although there is a severe lack of affordable housing on shore.
The RBRA’s attorney, David V. Roth, of Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, did not reply to the Pacific Sun’s requests for comment.
For some mariners, leaving Richardson Bay represents the death of a lifestyle, their calling to live on the water. Others say they’ve been forced out of the traditional housing market due to run-away costs for real estate in Marin. With no place to go, and more than 1,100 homeless people in Marin County, they fear they will soon be living on the streets.
On a drizzly Sunday morning in September, a tragic series of events unfolded in Petaluma that ended with two dead chickens, a Novato police sergeant shooting a neighbor’s dog and a long list of unanswered questions.
Debate on social media exploded after KGO-TV broke the news in mid-December. An anecdotal survey of comments showed many people in Sonoma County noting that it is legal to shoot a dog when it kills chickens. Meanwhile, most Marin-based commenters opined that shooting the dog was unreasonable and the Novato Police Department should conduct a full investigation.
Sonoma County and state statutes do permit a person to kill a dog that is attacking chickens on their property, regardless of the proximity to homes and people.
In October, the Novato Police Department reviewed a complaint stemming from the incident and announced that no disciplinary action will be taken against Sgt. Nick Frey, the employee who shot and killed his neighbors’ dog.
Still, some Marin residents are concerned about Frey and his behavior, all captured on video.
The Incident
Anna and Phil Henry, both in their 70s, live on a narrow lane in rural Petaluma. Sgt. Nick Frey, a police de-escalation instructor and head of Novato’s SWAT team, and his wife, Jennie Frey, live next door. Although the two properties each cover about two acres, the houses are situated close together.
The Henrys’ grandchildren accidentally let Huck, the couple’s four-year-old Black Mouth Cur, out of their fenced yard on Sept. 18, at about 10:50am. Huck, who weighed 90 pounds, entered the Freys’ partially unfenced property.
The Freys’ Ring cameras captured audio and video of what transpired after the dog arrived.
Upon watching the six videos provided to the Pacific Sun by the Freys’ attorney, Alison Berry Wilkinson, it became apparent that some footage was missing. Wilkinson admitted that additional footage exists; however, she said it was not released due to concerns for the Frey children’s privacy and “threatened litigation” by the Henry family.
The video sequences begin with Huck in the Freys’ yard and the Henry’s grandchildren can be heard trying to lure him home with treats. Soon a chaotic scene developed with Huck, chickens, Anna Henry, and Nick and Jennie Frey.
Huck chased chickens that roamed freely in the Freys’ yard, while Anna Henry pursued and yelled at him.
Nick Frey came into the yard with a handgun. He shouted and cursed.
Anna Henry caught Huck and leashed him, but he had already killed two chickens. Nick Frey stood next to his neighbor and the dog.
“Those are my children’s birds,” Nick Frey yelled.
Suddenly, Huck turned and pulled. Anna Henry, who underwent hip replacement surgery the previous month, fell to the ground and let go of the leash. Huck lunged behind a large tree that obscured much of the camera’s view. Nick Frey, also behind the tree, immediately took several steps to the side, moving away from the dog.
Nick Frey fired three shots. The dog dropped to the ground several feet in front of his shooter. Despite all three bullets hitting Huck, he was alive.
After the shooting
Not surprisingly, the Henrys and the Freys don’t agree on what happened before, during or after the shooting. While the Pacific Sun interviewed the Henrys for their perspectives, the Freys’ version of events comes from email exchanges with Wilkinson, their attorney. In addition, Wilkinson provided two written declarations, one by Jennie Frey and the other from Nick Frey.
According to Anna Henry, Huck pulled away from her because he was focused on a chicken that had begun flapping its wings. The dog ran past Nick Frey to get to the bird and was then shot in the back, she said.
Refuting Anna Henry’s claim, Nick Frey said the dog lunged at him, and he felt threatened, which is why he fired his gun.
Phil Henry, who was in his car at the end of the Freys’ driveway when the shooting occurred, had a clear view of the incident.
“I saw Nick shoot Huck as he was running away,” Phil Henry said. “The tree wasn’t in the way for me.”
After the shooting, Anna Henry said she asked Nick Frey to euthanize Huck because he was suffering. But Nick Frey responded that he’s “not touching that dog,” she said.
Nick Frey said his wife requested he euthanize the dog, but he declined because it would be illegal.
Believing Huck’s death was imminent, the Henrys stayed with him in the Freys’ yard for an hour. But Huck hung on, and the Henrys brought him to a veterinarian, who examined the dog and took x-rays of the gunshot wounds.
Huck could hear, partially lift his head and responded to pain, according to the veterinarian’s report. Gunshot wounds were found at the back of the dog’s head, behind his right ear and over his shoulder. Based on these findings, the Henrys decided to euthanize Huck.
Wilkerson said she would need to see an autopsy, photos and x-rays to determine that the dog was shot from behind. There are “multiple potential explanations” for the dog’s wounds in these areas, including the downward trajectory of the bullets or “the dog started to turn as he heard the first shot fire.”
About 25 minutes after the shooting, while Huck was still alive in the yard with the Henrys, Nick Frey told Sonoma County Animal Services that he shot and killed the dog, according to a report by an animal control officer.
Nick Frey’s written declaration stated he thought the dog was dead because the Henrys had covered Huck with a blanket.
The Beginning
The Henrys say there was only one previous encounter between Nick Frey and the dog, occurring in late June or early July. Huck barked at Nick Frey when he came outside to place his trash in the cans, which are next to the fence separating the two properties.
“I pulled Huck away from the fence,” Phil Henry said. “Nick said to me, ‘If your dog ever comes over here, he’s not coming back.’”
The Freys’ attorney, Wilkinson, denies her client used those words, but concedes that Nick Frey did say he would kill the dog to protect his family and chickens. However, Wikinson said it wasn’t a threat.
In response, the Henry’s raised the fence two feet and placed lattice work at the top to cut Huck’s view of the neighbor’s yard. After Jennie Frey texted Phil Henry to thank him for increasing the fence height, the Henrys believed the issue was resolved.
Yet, Wilkinson asserts the Freys had encounters with Huck on “multiple occasions.” The dog attempted to scale the fence to get to the chickens and was “aggressive toward Mr. Frey, barking viciously” at him, Wilkinson said.
The Freys only complained about Huck on that one occasion and appeared to know that Huck wasn’t vicious, the Henrys said. Afterall, when the Henrys’ grandchildren lived with them for six months, the Frey children visited and played with the dog, according to Anna Henry.
“We took Huck to the dog park every day and there were never any issues, “Phil said. “Not with people or other dogs.”
Two weeks after the shooting, the Freys put plastic skeletons of a dog and a human lying on the ground holding a leash in their yard, about where Huck was shot, the Henrys said. Already traumatized by the shooting, the family now felt intimidated, according to Anna Henry.
“It did not occur to me that the placement of those Halloween decorations might cause mental anguish or distress to our neighbors,” Nick Frey said.
The Aftermath
Sonoma County Animal Services found that Nick Frey was within his legal rights to shoot Huck and closed the case within days. The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Officer concurred with the decision, according to an email sent to the Henrys by an animal control officer.
Anna Henry filed a complaint about Nick Frey with the Novato Police Department on Oct. 12, saying that he had used excessive force and “seemed very out of control.”
Novato Police Chief Beth Johnson responded less than two weeks later, stating the department conducted a review and concluded the incident was out of their jurisdiction.
In an interview, Johnson said she “reviewed everything in its totality,” including the videos. The gun used to shoot the dog was not Nick Frey’s service weapon, another factor which distanced the incident from the police department, she said.
“No disciplinary action will be taken,” Johnson said. “There is not a nexus to his employment, and the labor laws are very specific.”
Interestingly, Nick Frey cited a state law and a Novato Police Department policy when he explained his reasons for declining to euthanize the dog. The law and policy both prohibit a law enforcement officer from euthanizing an animal, unless it is a stray or abandoned and “so badly injured that human compassion requires its removal from further suffering and where other dispositions are impractical.”
Since shooting and seriously wounding the dog had no connection to Nick Frey’s employment as a law enforcement officer, then euthanizing the dog shouldn’t either.
Novato police department policy also states that lying and unbecoming conduct, both on- and off-duty, are causes for disciplinary action. Johnson said she has no reason to believe her employee to be dishonest. There are different perceptions of an emotionally charged event, she said.
Credibility is at the core of the incident, according to Thomas Tiderington, a police use of force expert with more than 42 years of experience in law enforcement, including two decades serving as a police chief. Tiderington believes the shooting was justified but said he can’t determine if it was reasonable. He questions whether Nick Frey stepped away from the dog “to take the shot” or because he felt threatened.
“What did the officer believe in the moment it was occurring?” Tiderington said. “We don’t know exactly what happened. If he felt he was going to be injured by the dog, there’s no way anyone else could dispute that. He covered his bases by saying he felt he was in danger and protecting the chickens.”
Some of the officer’s conduct was unprofessional, Tiderington said. He cited keeping the skeletons on display as the “most outrageous” act.
“I really question the wisdom of the officer about that,” Tiderington said.
Some members of the Novato Police Advisory Review Board (PARB) also have questions. The board is composed of seven residents who are appointed by the Novato City Council to advise on police department policy.
One concern is the city failed to inform PARB that a complaint had been filed against an officer, although it is required by a city council resolution. Johnson said the board wasn’t told yet because it meets quarterly. However, the last meeting took place three weeks after Anna Henry filed her complaint and a week after Johnson responded to it.
Another issue is that Novato City Manager Adam McGill denied a PARB member’s request to call a special meeting about Nick Frey, according to an email obtained by the Pacific Sun. McGill’s reasoning is that the board could potentially be called upon to review this personnel matter, and members discussing it beforehand would render them ineffective as a “neutral jury.”
McGill’s logic seems flawed based on one of the prerequisites to trigger a PARB review of a personnel issue. The citizen who filed a complaint about the officer must also file an appeal of department’s determination within 30 days. Then McGill decides whether PARB will review the appeal.
Anna Henry never appealed Johnson’s decision because no one told her she could. It’s not on the generic complaint form and Johnson’s letter didn’t mention it. The 30-day window expired weeks ago.
Without an appeal, a PARB review isn’t triggered, making McGill’s excuse not to schedule the special meeting a moot point. Furthermore, PARB’s rules and regulations permit the board to call meetings and place items on the agenda.
The Future
Meanwhile, it’s been more than three months since the Henrys lost Huck. Their grief is still close to the surface. Anna Henry spoke to the Pacific Sun only once because she can no longer discuss Huck’s death. During several conversations with Phil Henry, he cried.
The only decision remaining for the the Henrys is whether to file a lawsuit against Nick Frey, but they understand it’s a long and emotional process. Still, they want to hold him accountable in some way.
In an interview with the Pacific Sun, the Henrys’ attorney said they could make a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
“Something has to be done about this officer,” Phil Henry said. “I don’t want Huck to have died in vain.”
It seems the Larkspur City Council is trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to rent control.
Two council members serving on an ad hoc committee have been hemming and hawing for months about the details of an ordinance for the entire council to consider.
Larkspur City Manager Dan Schwarz has said several times during council meetings that drafting an ordinance isn’t difficult, but the council needs to determine the parameters.
Now, rent stabilization for multi-family rental units is on the table, and the need is urgent, according to some Larkspur residents. Since March, people have lined up to speak during the public comment period at city council meetings, the majority pleading for rent stabilization.
Joan Weinberg, 74, sobbed as she told the council about her struggles to meet the substantial rent increase at Skylark Apartments, her home for the last 30 years. And she’s not alone.
As leases come up for renewal at Skylark, a 455-unit complex, tenants are faced with a 10% annual increase, the maximum amount allowed by state law. Many say they can no longer afford the rent and will be forced to leave Larkspur and Marin County.
Pell Development, a family-owned business, built Skylark Apartments in 1969 and retained ownership for more than 50 years. Under Pell’s management, the rent increases were nominal, long-time tenants have said.
That affordability came to a screeching halt in February, when Prime Group, the parent company of Prime Residential, purchased the property from the Pell family for $300 million. The hefty price tag made it the third largest apartment sale during the first quarter, out of approximately 2,200 transactions in the United States, according to statistics cited by Real Page, a real estate industry software company.
Prime Residential, which owns and operates more than 17,000 multi-family units on the West Coast, immediately began raising rents. Skylark residents, fearing they would be priced out of their homes, quickly formed a tenants association at the end of February.
The 200-member association has partnered with the Marin Democratic Socialists of America to pressure the Larkspur City Council to pass rent control and just cause eviction ordinances, Caroline Njoki, president of the Skylark Tenants Association, said in an interview. In addition, they have received support from Legal Aid of Marin.
Lucie Hollingsworth, an attorney for Legal Aid, said her office has been inundated with calls from Skylark residents since Prime Residential took over.
“People have a valid fear of homelessness,” Hollingsworth said. “Larkspur is losing naturally occurring affordable housing. Rent stabilization would help preserve it.”
Naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) is defined as existing multifamily rental properties that are affordable without public subsidy. When the ownership of a NOAH property turns over, it can displace renters and create instability within communities, according to McKinsey and Company, a management consulting firm.
Skylark was considered a NOAH property until the sale in February. Not only is Prime Residential raising rents for lease renewals, but it is also renovating empty units and jacking up those rents dramatically. The property’s website shows renovated units start at $2,598 for a 588 square foot studio, with a three-bedroom apartment starting at $4,910.
And it’s not just Skylark residents feeling the pain. More than half of Larkspur’s 13,000 residents are renters, according to data from the United States Census Bureau.
Other Larkspur complexes are also raising rents by 10%, says Njoki. Supporters of rent stabilization have been knocking on doors and setting up tables at a shopping plaza to obtain petition signatures. Five hundred Larkspur residents, 400 of them renters, have signed the petition urging the council to pass a rent stabilization ordinance.
Schwarz reported at a council meeting that an ordinance would affect approximately 3,300 renters and 65 properties. Only properties built before 1995 are subject to rent control, based on state law. Single family homes and condos are also exempt.
In August, the city council finally put rent control on the meeting agenda. Of the four members present at the meeting, only Councilmember Kevin Haroff offered his full support for rent control, saying his views have changed over time.
“In the multi-family [rental] area, things have changed,” Haroff said at the meeting. “Landlords and owners alter the dynamics of the market in a way that renters can’t control. To me, that means we have to take action.”
The council decided that Haroff and Vice Mayor Gabe Paulson would serve on an ad hoc committee to review rent stabilization and that the issue would be a standing item on the meeting agendas. Haroff stressed “the importance of acting quickly and robustly.”
At a September city council meeting, Will Madison, chief operating officer of Prime Residential, announced that they had established their own means tested rental assistance program. A single person earning up to $65,000 a year and a family of four earning up to $95,000 a year could qualify for up to a 15% discount. In addition, he claimed that no evictions were in process and dozens of lease renewals with rent increases below 10% had been sent out.
Njoki, the tenant association president, is skeptical of the company’s program as an alternative to a city ordinance. Not all people will apply for Prime Residential’s rental assistance, according to Njoki. For instance, undocumented immigrants wouldn’t be comfortable applying. Njoki also disputes that no evictions are in process at Skylark.
Julie, a Skylark resident, spoke at the September meeting about Prime Residential’s “generous offer” to lower her initial rent increase from 10% to 9.92%. It will save her $24 a year.
For about two months, the ad hoc committee, true to Haroff’s word, seemed to be moving forward quickly. It held separate forums for renters and landlords in September and October to gather information. Also in October, a workshop was held on “options to regulate residential rent increases.”
During the public comment period at the Oct. 2 workshop, a gentleman walked to the microphone and introduced himself as Mike Kibler, litigation counsel for Prime Residential. He stated that his typical forum isn’t a city council meeting, rather it’s a courtroom. Prime Residential will litigate if a rent control ordinance is passed, although that’s not a threat, he said.
Kibler sent a letter to the city manager the following day, reiterating that Prime Residential authorized his firm to sue the city—for $100 million—if the city “moves ahead with implementing any form of local rent control.”
The letter refers to the numerous Larkspur tenants who have spoken out for rent control as “a few misinformed and self-interested residents.” Ironically, Kibler then opines that a local ordinance “would have a devastating impact on Prime’s anticipated return on investment in Skylark.”
Hollingsworth, the Legal Aid attorney, sent her own letter to the city stating that Kibler’s threats are baseless, noting that he provided no legal authority or precedence for a lawsuit. Courts have supported local rent stabilization ordinances in California, “including rulings that reject an owner’s argument based on return on investment,” Hollingworth said.
Aside from a forum for landlords in mid-October, it appears the ad hoc committee’s progress on an ordinance has stalled. Haroff spoke of proceeding cautiously at the workshop. Councilmember Catherine Way has expressed that the city will have to consider the cost of litigation when reviewing a rent stabilization policy. The issue is no longer a standing item on the meeting agendas, and another ad hoc committee has been formed to review a city rental assistance program.
The Pacific Sun’s request for interviews with the city council members resulted in a phone interview with Schwarz, who indicated he doesn’t know where the council stands on rent stabilization and the next meeting addressing the issue will be in January.
“The process needs to take as long as it takes,” Schwarz said.
The Golden Gate Village Resident Council expected the Marin Housing Authority Board of Commissioners to reject their proposal to convert the deteriorating property into a housing co-op managed by residents. They were right.
At the end of a five-hour meeting on Nov. 15, the board voted 5-2 for the Marin Housing Authority’s plan to keep Golden Gate Village, an historic 296-unit public housing complex, under its control.
The two competing plans differed in the financing methods used to pay for the long overdue rehabilitation.
The resident council’s proposed financing would have permitted the property to convert to a Limited Equity Housing Cooperative (LEHC), a homeownership model designed for affordable housing communities. Under the LEHC model, Golden Gate Village residents could have bought in at a low, subsidized price, built limited equity and had the ability to pass on the property to their heirs.
The housing authority’s financing plan uses Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and other loans, which precludes a housing co-op. A limited partnership, including private investors and the Marin Housing Authority, not the residents, would own Golden Gate Village.
Located in Marin City, Golden Gate Village houses about 600 predominantly Black residents who have long complained the property has fallen into serious disrepair. Reports of mold, rodents, plumbing leaks, broken heating, faulty wiring and fire hazards have largely been ignored by the housing authority, prompting some residents to file a lawsuit that is currently wending its way through federal court.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) threatened to take over the Marin Housing Authority due to repeated “failing or near failing physical scores” at Golden Gate Village. Under HUD’s direction, the local agency developed a “corrective action plan” for the property’s revitalization.
Even under these circumstances, the seven-member board, composed of the Marin County Board of Supervisors and two “tenant commissioners,” gave the housing authority an overwhelming vote of confidence, as they have repeatedly done in the past.
The resident council is left wondering why only the Marin Housing Authority was permitted to present their plan at the meeting. Both proposals were presented at last month’s meeting, and several board members asked the resident council to clarify some elements of their plan.
Although the resident council prepared responses to the board’s questions, they were informed several days before the November meeting that they would not be allowed to address the board, according to Barbara Bogard, who is a member of the Golden Gate Village volunteer strategy team.
It appears only two members of the board wanted to learn the answers to their questions. Supervisor Damon Connolly, along with tenant commissioner Sarah Canson, cast the dissenting votes.
“I would have liked to have seen the residents’ council at the table and be given the time to flesh out the financing,” Connolly said in an email to the Pacific Sun.
A three-member board subcommittee, consisting of Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters, Supervisor Dennis Rodoni and Tenant Commissioner Homer Hall, made the decision not to give the resident council time at the meeting, according to Connolly.
The trio, along with Board President Katie Rice and Supervisor Judy Arnold, approved the housing authority’s proposal, thereby disregarding scores of Marin residents who spoke in favor of the resident council’s plan during a public comment period prior to the vote.
Remarkably, only two of the 60 speakers supported the housing authority’s scheme. Both are Golden Gate Village residents; one is employed by the Marin Housing Authority.
Golden Gate Village Resident Council President Royce McLemore and countywide supporters of the residents’ plan say racial discrimination guided the board’s decision. As an example, McLemore points to Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters’ recent comment that the residents lack the expertise to run a housing co-op.
“Our plan was to hire a management firm, just like the housing authority’s plan,” McLemore said in an interview. “We have the ability to interview and hire a management firm, and then make sure they do what’s within the contract. Stephanie has no respect for the residents. None.”
Moulton-Peters told the Pacific Sun in an interview on Oct. 27 that she believes “Golden Gate Village residents can manage the property with the management company.” Still, that belief apparently wasn’t enough to overcome her objections to the resident council’s plan, which she outlined in an opinion piece run by the Marin Independent Journal on the day before the vote.
While Moulton-Peters expressed her support of a housing co-op’s benefits, she argued the model doesn’t fit the scale of the Golden Gate Village project and questioned the feasibility of the resident council’s financing plan. In conclusion, Moulton-Peters wrote, “…we must move forward with making the immediate, securely funded improvements to Golden Gate Village.”
However, some aren’t convinced the housing authority’s funding is as secure as Moulton-Peters suggests. Lisa Bennett, a certified public accountant and member of the Golden Gate Village strategy team, says the LIHTC application process is very competitive and there’s no guarantee the housing authority will receive the funding.
A report released last year by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley explains the complexities of the LIHTC program. While it called the program “the most important source of funding for affordable housing in the United States,” it also noted that almost 90% of LIHTC developments in California required weaving together four or more funding sources, increasing costs and often extending project timelines.
These challenges don’t necessarily bode well for Moulton-Peters’ stance that the housing authority’s plan is more secure and expedient. The resident council said their plan, with a mortgage secured by HUD and grants from reputable sources to bridge a financing gap, may have been faster.
Strawberry resident Lori Bamberger, who was formerly the assistant chief of staff at HUD and currently serves as the managing partner at ABK City Advisors, an equitable economic development firm, supports the resident council’s plan for homeownership and self-governance.
Bamberger told the Pacific Sun in an interview that due to Marin’s history of barring Black people from homeownership through racist and discriminatory covenants, it is time to give Golden Gate residents this opportunity.
If the board doesn’t approve of the resident council’s proposed financing, it could explore other options to convert Golden Gate Village to a homeownership model, according to Bamberger, who also emailed her perspective to Moulton-Peters before the vote.
“It just takes a decision to roll up your sleeves and create a viable financing plan,” Bamberger said.
But it appears the Marin Housing Authority and its board may never have intended to seriously consider the housing co-op plan put forth by the resident council. The resident council and their strategy team maintain they weren’t given equal footing during the process.
The housing authority board formed a revitalization working group, giving the residents the same number of seats as the housing authority.
A consultant hired by HUD worked with the group on developing a financing strategy, yet based on numerous memos, reports and presentations generated by the consultant, his time was spent creating the housing authority’s plan, leaving the resident council to find a volunteer to assist them.
“The whole working group was a sham,” McLemore said. “But we’re not done yet. We’re going to keep refining our plan and maybe there’s another lawsuit coming.”
Renters in Fairfax breathed a collective sigh of relief last week when the town council approved two ordinances. One caps rent increases and the other provides strong measures to prevent arbitrary evictions, commonly known as a “just cause” eviction ordinance.
Faced with rising rents and inflation, the Marin Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has been pushing local jurisdictions to approve renter protections, viewing state laws as inadequate, especially for the current economic environment.
“The state’s rent cap is way too high, and its just cause eviction [provision] has loopholes,” Curt Ries, co-chair of the Marin DSA, said in an interview.
The average monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Marin County is now over $2,500, according to Apartment List, an online rental marketplace. Rents rose almost 14% in 2021 but stayed relatively steady in 2022, Apartment List’s data shows.
Under AB 1482, a 2019 law impacting some residential rental units across the state, landlords are allowed to increase rents up to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus 5%, or 10%, whichever is lower, each year. The regional CPI increase was 5% year-over-year for April, triggering a whopping 10% rent increase for Marin renters in units covered by AB 1482. Renters in units not included in the state law may have seen even larger legal increases.
Given this situation, it’s no wonder that 3,000 Marin residents—650 in Fairfax—have signed the DSA’s petition to support more stringent caps on rent increases and stronger just cause eviction protections.
The Marin DSA is currently urging San Anselmo and Larkspur to pass similar ordinances. And they don’t plan on stopping there.
Larkspur residents may be particularly receptive to renter protections, since more than half of them are tenants. Skylark Apartments, a 455-unit complex purchased by the Prime Group in February, has been aggressively raising rents, tenants say.
Skylark residents, fearing they would be priced out of their homes, quickly formed a tenants association at the end of February. The 200-member association has partnered with the DSA to put pressure on the Larkspur City Council to pass rent control and just cause eviction ordinances, Caroline Njoki, president of the Skylark Tenants Association, said in an interview.
The Marin DSA approached the San Anselmo City Council about renter protections earlier this year, and the organization anticipates presenting the issue to the council again in January, Ries said.
In Fairfax, more than 1,200 households rent their homes, constituting approximately 37% of total town households. Approximately 24% of Fairfax rental households are low income, 12% very low income and 36% are deemed extremely low income.
On Nov. 2, the rent stabilization ordinance received unanimous approval by the five-member Fairfax council. The just cause eviction ordinance passed 4-0, with one council member abstaining from the vote, saying that the ordinance lacked “reasonable kinds of compromises.” Both go into effect on Dec. 3.
The town’s newly adopted rent stabilization policy limits annual rent increases to an amount equal to 60% of the local CPI or 5%, whichever is lower. The new cap is far lower than the maximum 10% annual rent increase allowed on units covered by current state law.
However, an earlier California law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, exempts single-family homes, condos and units built after 1995 from state and local rent control ordinances. Local just cause eviction ordinances have no such restrictions.
Fairfax’s just cause eviction ordinance applies to a broader range of rental dwellings. This aspect of the law, as well as specified amounts landlords are required to pay for temporary tenant relocations and various punitive damages for landlords, gave pause to property owners and Councilmember Barbara Coler, who abstained from the vote.
“Some of the just cause strengthening is really, to me, fairly burdensome,” said Coler. “The temporary relocation payments, if you have to do a renovation and do a move out…it can be between $8- and $9,000 a month.”
Under the Fairax just cause ordinance, landlords who abuse the Ellis Act, a state law allowing landlords to withdraw a unit from the rental market to “go out of business,” are subject to paying a tenant triple damages if they re-rent the unit within two years. If the landlord wants to re-rent the unit within five years, it must first be offered to the former tenant. Any landlord failing to comply must financially compensate the former tenant for up to six months’ rent.
Lucie Hollingsworth, an attorney for Legal Aid of Marin, believes these measures are necessary.
“Capping rent increases is only a part of the solution,” Hollingsworth said in a Sept. 27 letter to the town council. “Policies are needed to disincentivize outside investors from displacing Fairfax tenants merely to take advantage of Fairfax’s lack of local tenant protections.”
Indeed, Marin County towns and cities seem to be prime targets for large real estate investors. In a September article about Marin apartment complexes being sold to large investors, The Real Deal noted, “The county [Marin] also does not have the same strict rent control measures that can make owning multifamily properties an onerous proposition in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and San Jose.”
The Fairfax just cause eviction ordinance has financial ramifications for corporate real estate investors and small, local landlords, including, for example, a senior who rents out a room in their home to make ends meet. At public meetings, critics of the ordinance said that these disincentives, aimed at preventing property owners from evicting tenants arbitrarily just to raise rents for future tenants, could cause problems for the landlord who rents out a portion of their home to a tenant. Disliking a tenant is not considered a just cause for eviction.
Others warned of legal pushback.
“I believe these controls are so far reaching, you’ll most certainly find it challenged in the court,” Michael Burke, a real estate agent with Sotheby’s International Realty in Greenbrae, said at the Fairfax Town Council meeting.
Royce McLemore, president of the Golden Gate Village Resident Council, is within a few steps of achieving the goal she has been working toward for almost a decade. It has been McLemore’s dream to restore the neglected and decaying public housing complex in Marin City.
Golden Gate Village has been home to McLemore, 79, for most of her life. She has battled for years with the Marin Housing Authority over their failure to provide safe and sanitary living conditions. The apartments are rife with mold, rodents, plumbing leaks, broken heating, faulty wiring and fire hazards, according to residents.
The significance of Golden Gate Village often goes unrecognized. Completed in 1961, Aaron Green, a protégé of Frank Lloyd Wright, designed the 32-acre public housing development for Black people who had built Liberty ships in nearby Sausalito during World War II. Almost 6,000 shipyard workers lived in temporary housing in Marin City; however, white people left after the war, with money in their pockets from their well-paying jobs. Black people also had money but stayed in Marin City because of redlining, the discriminatory practice of preventing them from buying homes in other areas of the county.
Today, Golden Gate Village is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The 296 units house about 700 predominantly Black residents, many of whom are descendants of the shipbuilders. Notably, Golden Gate Village is the only public housing in Marin that accepts children.
In an effort to preserve the historic property, McLemore and the resident council recruited a volunteer strategy team several years ago. The diverse team includes a real estate developer, an attorney, a certified public accountant and other professionals who assisted the resident council in putting together a viable plan to rehabilitate Golden Gate Village.
The Marin Housing Authority’s seven-member board, composed of the Marin County Board of Supervisors and two community members, voted in March to recommend the resident council’s revitalization plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which is overseeing the process.
In fact, HUD is scrutinizing the Marin Housing Authority, after threatening to take over the agency in May 2021, due to repeated “failing or near failing physical scores” at Golden Gate Village. The housing authority is under a corrective action plan, which includes deadlines.
To stay on track for HUD and flesh out the details of the resident plan, the housing authority board voted in March 2022 to form a “working group.” A facilitator was hired, costing the county $110,000. Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters and an equal number of representatives from the housing authority and Golden Gate Village were appointed to the working group.
The members participated in about 20 Zoom meetings, from May 27-Oct. 28, and agreed on many aspects of the resident council plan. Both the Marin Housing Authority and the resident council concur on using green and sustainable building practices for the property’s revitalization, while also preserving its historic qualities. Ditto for keeping Golden Gate Village affordable for low-income residents.
Unfortunately, two major sticking points, homeownership and project financing, have caused a stalemate between the two factions of the working group. The housing authority decided to present the board with an alternate financing plan, one which effectively blocks residents from a pathway to homeownership in Golden Gate Village.
Two plans now compete for the board’s approval. Both were revealed at a Marin Housing Authority board meeting on Oct. 18, and a final vote will take place at the Nov. 15 board meeting.
The Golden Gate Village Resident Council proposes financing the project with a mortgage, an approach they admit would leave a gap of $26 million. However, a financing consultant working with the group helped them identify reputable funding sources, mostly grants, to bridge the gap.
This financing conforms with a Limited Equity Housing Cooperative (LEHC), a homeownership model designed for affordable housing communities, which is a key component of the resident council’s plan. Under the LEHC, Golden Gate Village residents would establish a nonprofit corporation that owns the buildings and each resident would have the option of buying a share in the corporation, initially at a subsidized price. As shareholders, residents become homeowners, allowing them to build limited equity and pass on the property to their heirs.
Section 8 project-based vouchers held by the residents would help pay for the monthly expenses. The LEHC may also apply for grants for capital improvements and other community needs.
Most importantly, co-op residents would elect their own board of directors and hire a management company to take care of day-to-day operations. No longer beholden to the housing authority, the residents would self-govern for the first time in Golden Gate Village’s 61-year history.
Conversely, the Marin Housing Authority prefers to keep control of Golden Gate Village, which contains more than half of Marin County’s public housing stock. The housing authority plans to finance the renovations through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, ruling out homeownership for residents. In addition, the housing authority contends the LEHC model presents regulatory problems.
“The resident council’s goals and the approach for a LEHC are at odds with Section 8 Project Based Vouchers requirements in HUD’s regulations,” Kimberly Carroll, executive director of the Marin Housing Authority, said in an email.
Not so, according to Barbara Bogard, who is a member of the working group and the strategy team assisting the resident council. Other public housing developments that have converted to the LEHC model still meet Section 8 requirements, Bogard said.
Golden Gate Village residents don’t trust the housing authority to perform ongoing maintenance of the property after the rehabilitation is complete. The current degraded condition was caused by the housing authority’s neglect, although it has consistently blamed underfunding for the maintenance backlog and inability to make capital improvements.
“For many years, Congress has failed to fully fund federal housing programs, including the Public Housing Capital Fund and Public Housing Operating Fund,” Carroll said. “…The MHA is dealing with the same challenges that public housing authorities throughout the country are facing.”
While Carroll’s statement is accurate, underfunding is not an excuse for failing to maintain Golden Gate Village. In 2018, Jane Winter, then-executive director of the financially healthy YWCA Apartments in San Francisco, also funded by HUD, brought this to the attention of the Marin Housing Authority in a letter.
“High quality professional affordable housing operators all know HUD funding is not available for major capital projects, and they plan well in advance to secure non-HUD funding for items that go beyond annual maintenance and repair,” Winter wrote.
Examples of such funding were included in the letter, yet the Marin Housing Authority never acted on any of Winter’s suggestions until now. Their proposal presented to the board on Oct. 18 includes one of the recommended financing options.
Both the housing authority and the resident council seem entrenched in their positions, despite months of working group meetings. The Golden Gate Village contingent believes the playing field wasn’t level.
For instance, the working group facilitator silenced McLemore, the resident council president, by turning off her microphone several times during meetings, said Lisa Bennett, a strategy team member who also serves in the working group.
The resident council contends racism has been a component of the meetings as well. Marin County Supervisor Moulton-Peters, a member of the working group, made a racist remark, according to Bogard.
The Pacific Sun verified that Moulton-Peters made the following comment by watching the video from the Sept. 23 working group meeting:
“Running a co-op requires financial, legal and operational expertise,” Moulton-Peters said. “I would want to understand where that expertise lies in the resident population. My sense is if it were in the resident population, then the strategy team would not have been needed. So that’s just a working theory I have. But this is a serious endeavor. I think it’s fair to ask that question, too. Where is the expertise that would run the co-op within the resident population?”
Moulton-Peters told the Pacific Sun in an interview that she did use these words during the meeting and clarified what she meant by the statement.
“I didn’t intend it to be that way,” Moulton-Peters said. “I believe the Golden Gate Village residents can manage the property with the management company.”
If the other housing authority board members agree with Moulton-Peters, then why not let the residents have a housing co-op at Golden Gate Village?
Marin County is proficient at performative measures rather than making meaningful changes for underserved communities. Last week, the county announced it is “taking black Sharpies to racist language” in real estate deeds, literally crossing out the words that prohibited Black people from purchasing property. While it sounds nice in the press release, it doesn’t provide redress to those impacted by redlining.
Marin County stole homeownership opportunities from Marin City’s Black residents after WWII. Giving the residents of Golden Gate Village a chance to own property would be a small step towards righting a huge wrong.
__________________________________
Tell the Marin Housing Authority Board of Commissioners which plan you support before they vote on Nov. 15:
Some residents of Belvedere believe coyotes on the small island have overstayed their welcome, saying the animals have snatched family pets right out of their yards.
Other complaints about the wild canines in the tony enclave include that they roam the streets in packs, stalk people as they walk their dogs and refuse to back off when faced with efforts to scare them away.
There’s talk of shooting the coyotes or relocating them. People are scared the next victim could be a child.
A Belvedere woman said she carries a baseball bat when she leaves the house to fend off a potential coyote attack. Another said she brings a bear horn and portable alarms when she goes for a walk.
Folks in Tiburon have the same concerns as their Belvedere neighbors. Lorraine Gemigniani says the area is unique because it’s a peninsula, and there aren’t any predators to cull the coyote packs.
“I saw a coyote running up Lyford with a cat in his mouth,” Gemigniani said. “It’s gotten crazy. There are too many coyotes, and they are in charge. We need a reprieve from what’s going on.”
While Gemigniani is seeking a solution, she doesn’t advocate killing the coyotes. She said that she has spoken to Tiburon Police Chief Ryan Monaghan about the coyotes and plans on contacting Marin County officials, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Marin Humane, which is responsible for the county’s animal control.
“Ideally, Marin Humane hires a group to tranquilize the coyotes or set some kind of humane traps,” Gemigniani said. “Then they load ’em up and move ’em out of here.”
Gemigniani is aware that relocating coyotes is illegal in California. Ditto for shooting coyotes in urban areas of Marin. However, she wants the state relocation laws changed for the Tiburon Peninsula and Belvedere.
Over the summer, people who frequent Peacock Gap Park in San Rafael felt the same fear and frustration that Belvedere and Tiburon residents are now experiencing. Fortunately, the worry abated at Peacock Gap after the Marin Coyote Coalition, a group formed by Marin Humane, Marin County Parks and Project Coyote, educated park users about coyote behavior.
Coyote sightings at the park, which has a children’s playground, and the adjacent golf course are on the rise. Confrontations were reported, including a coyote biting a dog and coyotes surrounding a child.
Parents thought the coyotes were “coming to get our kids,” according to Gina Farr, a wildlife educator who serves on the advisory board of Project Coyote, a national nonprofit advocating for coexistence between wildlife and humans. Farr says it’s more likely the golf course and its restaurant attracted the coyotes from the nearby open space.
“A golf course is a smorgasbord for coyotes, with its supply of water and gophers,” Farr said in an interview. “The restaurant has a dumpster with food.”
The Marin Coyote Coalition recommended that people at Peacock Gap scare the animals away using a method called hazing. While residents often say the animals aren’t responding to hazing, the Marin Coyote Coalition maintains that it works effectively if the proper techniques are used.
The feedback from Peacock Gap Park visitors has been positive, according to Captain Cindy Machado, director of animal services at Marin Humane.
Hazing starts by making eye contact with the coyote and acting big, bad and loud, Farr said. Take a step forward, wave your arms around, throw sticks toward the coyote, yell and make noise with an air horn or a whistle. Using the element of surprise, such as opening a pop-up umbrella or spraying the coyote with a hose, will frighten them. Most importantly, people must continue hazing until the animal leaves the area.
“The typical scenario is that you scream at a coyote, and it runs 10 feet, then stops and looks at you,” Captain Cindy Machado, director of animal services at Marin Humane, said. “That pattern is what gets the coyotes into trouble. Keep hazing until they get the message.”
Another common misperception is that coyotes stalk and hunt in packs. Coyotes in the west typically hunt solo; however, they may move in a pack if they find an abundant food supply. Farr said she received a report of three to four coyotes repeatedly visiting a Safeway, where she discovered that outdated rotisserie chickens were routinely placed in an open dumpster.
In the late summer and fall, the animals may appear in groups as the coyote parents begin taking their pups, born in the spring, out of the den to prepare them for life on their own. If the parents have never been hazed, neither have the pups, and they may approach people.
“Their curious response could be misinterpreted as assertive and bold,” Machado said.
Like dogs, coyotes are canines. Although they’re very adaptive to the urban environment, humans can shape their behavior.
The best practice for preventing the animals from hanging around humans should go without saying—don’t feed coyotes, intentionally or otherwise, by leaving pet food, water and unsecured garbage cans outside. Fallen fruit in the yard and even bird feeders, if not kept tidy, can also attract coyotes.
“Coyotes aren’t searching out pets or toddlers,” Machado said. “They’re looking for rats, gophers and fruit, but if unattended cats and small dogs are in their pathway, it’s an easy meal.”
Although many Belvedere and Tiburon residents probably aren’t going to gain an appreciation of coyotes anytime soon, some Marin residents are fascinated by the animals.
Native to California, coyotes were in the region long before European colonizers arrived, according to a study, published in 2018, by James W. Hody of North Carolina State University and Roland Kays of North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences.
In the early 1900s, Marin County hired hunters to kill coyotes, as did livestock ranchers. Yet the intelligent creatures repopulated the area. Coyotes are important to our ecosystem, keeping the rodent population under control.
One coyote can devour 1,800 rodents a year, Camilla Fox, founder and executive director of Project Coyote, told the Pacific Sun in a 2020 interview.
“The Marin Coyote Coalition’s recommendations were developed with hard-core science and years of experience in Marin,” Machado said. “But everyone in the community needs to be on the same page.”
Farr echoes Machado’s sentiments, emphasizing that consistent hazing gives humans power over coyotes.
“If we misunderstand the process, it’s easy to say it doesn’t work,” Farr said. “I’ll bet you right now, it will work.”
Two races for open seats on the Novato City Council have inspired five diverse candidates to throw their hats in the ring for the Nov. 8 election.
Rachel Farac and Andy Podshadley compete to represent District 2, a portion of southwest Novato. The seat is open because Councilmember Denise Athas announced in May that she wouldn’t seek reelection after a dozen years of service.
Incumbent Pat Eklund is up against two challengers, Nicole Gardner and Chris Carpiniello, in the District 4 race. While Gardner and Carpiniello are newcomers to the Novato political scene, Eklund has served on the city council for 27 years, including several stints as the mayor. District 4 covers most of the southwest area of Novato.
District 2 Candidates
Podshadley, owner of Trek Winery in downtown Novato, describes himself as fiscally conservative and morally liberal. Although the Novato native has always wanted to run for a position on the city council, this election marks his first time running for office.
“I’m at a place right now where I have the time and can be an asset to the council,” Podshadley said.
It seems that Podshadley has spent years preparing for a city council seat. His leadership experience in the community includes coaching high school sports and serving as the president of the Downtown Novato Business Association and a committee member on the tourism commission for the Novato Chamber of Commerce.
Novato faces many issues right now, according to Podshadley. If elected, he plans on tackling the city’s $1.5 million deficit, crime prevention, and increasing affordable housing.
“I have two children in their 20s who can’t afford to live in the community they grew up in and love,” Podshadley said. “I’m for affordable in-fill development. We need to mix high-, middle- and low-income housing across all the different areas of Novato, instead of segregating affordable housing.”
The Novato Police Officers Association and the Marin Realtors have endorsed Podshadley.
Podshadley’s opponent, Rachel Farac, is a life-long Marin resident with a record of community service. Farac currently has a position on the county’s Mental Health Board and was previously on the Novato Planning Commission. She served as the chairperson for both groups.
As the mother of a 15-month-old baby and a two-and-a-half-year-old, Farac believes the Novato City Council needs a member with school-age children. Mayor Eric Lucan’s departure this year for his newly won seat on the Marin County Board of Supervisors will leave a void in that arena, according to Farac.
Her top priorities, if elected, include addressing Novato’s budget shortfall, public safety and homelessness. To implement solutions, Farac says the council must nail down where the city’s money is being spent.
“Novato hasn’t updated the annual financial report since [the fiscal year] of 2018-2019,” Farac said. “An updated report is absolutely necessary to make good financial decisions. I’ll work to secure additional funding for programs by obtaining infrastructure and other economic grants from the federal and state governments.”
Farac proposes that the city create a mobile mental health crisis unit, funded through grants, similar to a program on which San Rafael is now working. The goal is for mental health experts to respond to non-violent domestic calls for service, which will decrease the demand on the stretched resources of the police and fire departments.
“The county has a mobile unit right now, but they’re so busy, they’re not helping Novato,” Farac said. “We can utilize the learnings from other cities and counties to establish our own programs.”
The Marin Democrats and North Bay Leadership Council endorse Farac’s candidacy.
District 4 Candidates
Elected to the city council in 1995, Eklund has successfully won seven consecutive elections. As she runs for an eighth term, her opponents say a change in leadership is overdue, especially in light of the Novato budget issues.
Eklund didn’t respond to the Pacific Sun’s requests for an interview. We obtained information about her platform from pateklund.com; however, the budget page doesn’t go beyond the 2017-2018 fiscal year, and no explanation is provided.
Still, her statements on the website about the budget may yield clues about where she places the blame for the current deficit. After a description of the overall financial conditions since 2007, Eklund discusses the city’s tax measures and provides an overview of property taxes since the 1970s.
In conclusion, Eklund states that Novato’s property tax revenues are the lowest of the 11 cities in Marin County and that she didn’t vote for the $69 million budget for the 2017-2018 fiscal year.
Other issues important to Eklund run the gamut, including affordable housing, public safety, downtown revitalization, juvenile crime, seniors and the environment. There are a dozen issues listed, but only the budget page contains in-depth information. The other 11 pages contain no specific plans for solutions.
Challenger Nicole Gardner will bring a unique perspective to city politics. After losing her daughter to a drive-by shooting several years ago, she has received national recognition as an outspoken proponent of gun safety. Locally, Gardner serves on the board of Legal Aid of Marin and the Marin Race Equity Planning Committee.
Gardner cites diversity, equity and inclusion issues as the main reason she’s running. Gardner, who is Black, wants people of color to feel comfortable at the city council meetings and express their concerns.
“In Novato, I don’t always feel included,” Gardner said. “I love Novato, but it could be better with more diversity, more Black-owned businesses and more businesses owned by people from all ethnic backgrounds.”
Lack of transparency with the city budget also concerns Gardner, who plans to have the financial reports updated. Once the line item budget is reconciled, Gardner says she’ll look to increase the police and firefighters’ salaries, enabling them to live in the city they protect.
Other issues she’ll address are mental health care, especially for youth, and removing the police, known as school resource officers, from positions on public school campuses.
The Marin Democrats and Everytown for Gun Safety, a national organization, endorsed Gardner.
Chris Carpiniello, the third candidate vying for the District 4 seat, says he decided to run when he had time on his hands during the COVID lockdown and began attending Novato City Council meetings.
“I was horrified with what they were getting away with,” Carpiniello said.
As the chair of the Marin GOP election integrity committee, Carpiniello advocates for voting with paper ballots only. He believes digital elections are “rigged” and the 2020 election was “illegitimate.”
Like all the candidates, Carpiniello says the city’s budget is a primary problem.
“I’ll form a committee to get those books reconciled,” Carpiniello said. “We have to reconcile the books to know where we stand.”
Carpiniello plans to increase Novato’s affordable housing stock by lifting many of the building permit regulations, which he says curtail development. Another key goal is to stop the city government from “pandering to every special interest that comes around.”
The Outcome
The two candidates who win seats on the Novato City Council will certainly have challenges and hard work ahead. With each serving a four-year term, they should be able to make a dent in resolving the many issues facing Novato now.
The right to vote is a privilege. Mail in your ballot or get out there on Nov. 8 and make it count.
My father’s cremated remains sit atop a vintage table in my living room, hidden inside a wood urn I purchased from an artist on Etsy. It seems like an antithetical end for a man whose zest for life knew few bounds.
It’s a sure bet he would have chosen to transform himself into nutrient-rich soil, if it had been an option. Now, it is.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 351 on Sept. 18, legalizing human composting. California joined Washington, the first state in the nation to approve the practice; Colorado; Oregon; and Vermont.
However, the California Department of Public Health requested and received an implementation date of Jan. 1, 2027, giving the agency sufficient time to consider human composting regulations, according to the office of Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, the author of the legislation.
Advocates point to the environmental-friendly aspects of human composting, especially when compared to other methods of disposition. The statistics associated with traditional burials and cremation are astounding.
Traditional burials in the United States use, on an annual basis, 4.3 million gallons embalming fluid, 20 million board feet of hardwoods, including rainforest woods, 1.6 million tons of concrete, 64,500 tons of steel and 17,000 tons of copper and bronze, according to a study by Mary Woodsen of Cornell University and Greensprings Natural Preserve in Newfield, New York.
Embalming fluid usually contains formaldehyde, a chemical that has been associated with adverse health effects, putting funeral service workers at risk. And it can leach into the ground, endangering the water supply.
The number of cremations has increased dramatically over the last decade, surpassing burials in this country. Human cremation presents its own set of problems. The EPA reports the process results in emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide and “hazardous air pollutants” known to cause cancer and other serious health impacts. In 2017, human cremation produced approximately 1.8 tons of mercury, according to the EPA.
Enter human composting, which involves the natural organic reduction of a body, a process somewhat akin to that of a backyard composting bin. It takes about 1/8 the energy of a traditional burial or cremation, says Katrina Spade, founder and CEO of Seattle-based Recompose, the first human composting funeral home in the country.
Human composting was Spade’s brainchild. She was an architecture student when she first began thinking about the end-of-life alternative in 2011.
“When I started out, human composting wasn’t a business idea,” Spade said in an interview with the Pacific Sun. “It was kind of a design exercise and personal exploration.”
Spade spent almost a decade developing the process, raising funds–Handmaid’s Tale author Margaret Atwood was an early investor-and stewarding state legislation in Washington. Recompose accepted its first bodies for human composting in December 2020.
There are now three funeral homes in Washington offering human composting. The two-month process may differ slightly depending on the service provider, but the basics remain the same. A body is placed in a metal vessel surrounded by three cubic yards of plant material, such as alfalfa, straw and wood chips.
Oxygen, dispersed through the vessel, accelerates the growth of microbes, natural organisms that feed on the corpse. Temperature and moisture levels are also key components of the process.
The microbial activity heats the body, although other means may be necessary to maintain a temperature between 130 to 160 degrees Fahrenheit inside the vessel. The high temperature aids decomposition and kills fecal coliform, salmonella and other pathogens.
Under these optimal conditions, most of the human remains will convert into soil in 30 days. Bones, however, don’t break down easily. Return Home, a funeral home in Washington offering human composting services, is transparent about the procedure it uses to hasten the decomposition of bones.
“During the screening process, we remove bones from the soil, grind them into 1/8-inch shards and then add them back,” Micah Truman, CEO of Return Home, said in an interview with the Pacific Sun. “Bone is hard on the outside and porous on the inside. The smaller pieces of bone allow the microbes to transform them into soil.”
The final 30-day phase, referred to as curing or resting, allows the soil to cool and emit carbon dioxide. The result is one cubic yard of soil, enough to fill the back of a pickup truck. Loved ones can choose to take the entire amount, donate it to a land preserve or a combination of both.
Return Home has composted 90 bodies since it opened in June 2021, with 70% of families taking all the soil, according to Truman.
“The remaining 30% take some or none,” Truman said. “Very few, a minority take none. Two families have done that.”
Truman prefers to call human composting “Terramation,” a term his team at Returning Home coined and trademarked. It has a gentler connotation, indicating one of the challenges facing the human composting industry – the perception of the process.
Representatives of the Catholic Church have denounced human composting for a variety of reasons. Kathleen Domingo, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said human composting “reduces the human body to simply a disposable commodity,” according to the National Catholic Reporter.
In the Jewish religion, wrapping the body in a white shroud and burial in a plain pine casket has been the tradition for many generations. Jeremy Kalmanofsky, a Conservative rabbi in New York, rejects human composting, while Rabbi Ted Falcon wants his body composted, according to an article in The Forward, a Jewish publication.
Islamic tradition calls for wrapping the body in a white shroud and burial directly in the soil without a casket. This natural burial is good for the environment and respectful to the deceased, Edward Ahmed Mitchell, deputy executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the Pacific Sun.
“Although Islamic scholars tells us that certain forms of disposal allowed by California’s new law—such as mechanically ‘grinding, crushing or pulverizing’ a body to turn it into soil—would be considered acts of desecration and hence prohibited under Islamic law, scholars also recognize that every deceased person has the right to be buried in accordance with their own wishes or faith traditions, as long as it does not harm the public,” Mitchell said.
Slade, CEO of Recompose, believes the slow adoption of the human composting process has less to do with religion and more to do with awareness–or lack thereof. As of the end of September, Recompose has composted the remains of 189 people in the 21 months since it opened.
“Even though human composting is out there in the press, relatively few people know that it exists as an option,” Slade said.
Return Home’s CEO, Truman, says the Terramation process is especially interesting to younger people because of their concerns about the planet. Almost 480,000 people follow Return Home on Tik Tok, a social media platform with 75% of its users under the age of 35.
Green burial, better known and more widely accepted than human composting, alisso favored by environmentally-conscious people. Embalming isn’t permitted. The body is placed into a biodegradable container and buried directly in the ground, without the use of a burial vault. Slade says green burial inspired her human composting concept.
Fernwood Cemetery and Funeral Home in Mill Valley offers green burials, as well as traditional burials and cremation. Graves in the green cemetery, located adjacent to the Golden Gate Recreation area, can be marked with a small, natural boulder or nothing at all because each site is mapped by GPS.
“We have more people choosing natural burials over traditional burials and cremation,” Janet DeYoung, Fernwood’s manager, said. “In a natural burial, it takes about two years [for the body] to totally decompose.”
The environmental impact of green burials is land use, which is not an issue with human composting. As DeYoung points out, they don’t disinter the decomposed remains after a green burial.
Another major difference between the two alternatives is price. The cost for a green burial plot in Fernwood starts at $13,500, while Recompose charges $7,000 for human composting and Return Home’s fee is $4,950.
For an additional charge, Recompose and Return Home offer a laying-in ceremony, which allows loved ones to be present when the body is transferred into the metal vault where the composting process takes place.
Slade and Truman say they’ll open locations in California in 2027, when licensing becomes available for human composting facilities. Some Marin residents will wait until then to consider whether to turn their bodies into fertile soil, although others may not have the luxury of time.
Both Recompose and Returning Home accept bodies from outside Washington. A local funeral home can assist with the transportation arrangements.
My assignment this week was to write a piece about the monumental storms that packed a wallop in Marin and Sonoma counties, but I needed a break from bad news.
Fortunately, I found a heartwarming story about a fairy, a stranded motorist and a bunny on a flooded road during a downpour.
To satisfy my editor, let me get this out...
A local government agency in Marin seems to have a knack for targeting the most defenseless people in a vulnerable community of mariners, including a pregnant woman, seniors and people with disabilities.
During the last six months, at least three mariners living aboard their boats anchored out in Richardson Bay have filed federal lawsuits against the Richardson Bay Regional Agency...
On a drizzly Sunday morning in September, a tragic series of events unfolded in Petaluma that ended with two dead chickens, a Novato police sergeant shooting a neighbor’s dog and a long list of unanswered questions.
Debate on social media exploded after KGO-TV broke the news in mid-December. An anecdotal survey of comments showed many people in Sonoma County noting...
It seems the Larkspur City Council is trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to rent control.
Two council members serving on an ad hoc committee have been hemming and hawing for months about the details of an ordinance for the entire council to consider.
Larkspur City Manager Dan Schwarz has said several times during council meetings that drafting an...
The Golden Gate Village Resident Council expected the Marin Housing Authority Board of Commissioners to reject their proposal to convert the deteriorating property into a housing co-op managed by residents. They were right.
At the end of a five-hour meeting on Nov. 15, the board voted 5-2 for the Marin Housing Authority’s plan to keep Golden Gate Village, an historic...
Renters in Fairfax breathed a collective sigh of relief last week when the town council approved two ordinances. One caps rent increases and the other provides strong measures to prevent arbitrary evictions, commonly known as a “just cause” eviction ordinance.
Faced with rising rents and inflation, the Marin Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has been pushing local jurisdictions to approve renter...
Royce McLemore, president of the Golden Gate Village Resident Council, is within a few steps of achieving the goal she has been working toward for almost a decade. It has been McLemore’s dream to restore the neglected and decaying public housing complex in Marin City.
Golden Gate Village has been home to McLemore, 79, for most of her life. She...
By Nikki Silverstein
Some residents of Belvedere believe coyotes on the small island have overstayed their welcome, saying the animals have snatched family pets right out of their yards.
Other complaints about the wild canines in the tony enclave include that they roam the streets in packs, stalk people as they walk their dogs and refuse to back off when faced...
Two races for open seats on the Novato City Council have inspired five diverse candidates to throw their hats in the ring for the Nov. 8 election.
Rachel Farac and Andy Podshadley compete to represent District 2, a portion of southwest Novato. The seat is open because Councilmember Denise Athas announced in May that she wouldn’t seek reelection after a...
My father’s cremated remains sit atop a vintage table in my living room, hidden inside a wood urn I purchased from an artist on Etsy. It seems like an antithetical end for a man whose zest for life knew few bounds.
It’s a sure bet he would have chosen to transform himself into nutrient-rich soil, if it had been an...
