(Photo by Deane Little/Courtesy of East Bay Parks)

BY ALEXIA UNDERWOOD //

On November 4, voters in Alameda and Contra Costa counties passed Measure WW with 71 percent approval. The measure extended an existing regional park bond measure to the tune of $500 million, to be distributed over the next 20 years.

“I think that it’s a tribute to the people [for] recognizing the value of the park district and wanting to have more parks and more opportunities in the future,” said Jack Kenny, chief of parks for the East Bay Regional Park District.

The bond money will uphold ongoing park district projects including urban creek restoration, wildlife protection and additional land purchases according to park district officials.

The money will also be used to acquire, develop, and improve local and regional parks, trails, and recreational facilities for East Bay residents.

Measure WW is an extension of original bond Measure AA, passed in 1988, which imposed a maximum $10 tax per year on every $100,000 of assessed property valuation, according to the park district website. For the owner of a $300,000 house, this would translate into paying about $30 a year.

Seventy-five percent of the new money will go towards buying new parkland and funding projects, and 25 percent will go to cities and local park districts, like El Cerrito’s.

Kenny explained that the measure allotted for a series of bond sales that take place over 20 years. The property tax begins soon, with the first installment due in December, he said.

Some people were surprised to see the widespread support the measure received, said Kenny. “Especially in really tough economic times, I think that [percentage] is surprising,” he said.

Rosemary Cameron, assistant general manager of public affairs with the park district said cities still had some time to put together their proposals for the bond money.

“We’ll be rolling out all the formal procedural guides on how the local grant program will work – right at the beginning of 2009,” said Cameron. “This isn’t something that cities will have to apply for immediately. They will have several years in which to do this.”

Jennings, right, campaigning on Tuesday with Sharon Lewis.

BY SWETA VOHRA//

For Joyce Jennings, Tuesday’s election brought both a sense of jubilation and a measure of defeat. While Jennings was thrilled about the country electing its first black president, California passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, a move that meant, “racism is still prevalent in our culture,” according to Jennings.

“I’m feeling really sad,” said Jennings on Wednesday afternoon. She said that she was still hanging on to sliver of hope, as the absentee ballots had not been counted yet. But a win for the other side had already been declared on many news stations, and it was unlikely things were going to change.

The issue of marriage has been a long and emotional journey for Jennings, a Berkeley resident, and her partner, Patty Mead. After the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages this past May, Jennings and Mead were married for the second time. The two had previously married in 2004, when Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco allowed weddings of same-sex couples. However, that license was nullified six months later as the Supreme Court determined the mayor had acted outside his authority. For Jennings, the ceremony this past June was exceptionally emotional.

“It felt very different to me to have the government saying of course you can get married,” said Jennings.

To their surprise and delight, the person who conducted the ceremony was a part-time public health officer who had requested the chance to marry same-sex couples. According to Jennings, the woman had just attended her own lesbian daughter’s wedding and was so moved that she felt she had to be a part of this tremendous moment and asked to wed couples.

“That made the whole ceremony even more special,” said Jennings.

However, with Tuesday’s election results, California will add an amendment forbidding same-sex marriages, and it is unclear whether marriages like Jennings will still be upheld. The vote on Proposition 8 passed with 52 percent of the votes and was one of the most expensive social proposition campaigns in the country with over $73 million dollars spent between both sides.

Jennings, who believes Proposition 8 strips away basic human rights, said, “I’m a consenting adult – cannot I decide who I want to spend the rest of my life with…who my family is?”

Almost 10 years ago, Jennings met partner Mead and her then 9-year old son at a lesbian ballroom dancing class. Jennings said Mead knew right away she wanted to spend the rest of her life with Jennings, but it took Jennings a bit longer. The couple did fall in love and were engaged six months later. In 2001, the couple held a private commitment ceremony in Tilden Park with a 100 of their closest friends and family.

Jennings said when people really get to know a lesbian or gay couple, they understand that they share many of the same beliefs and encounter many of the same compromises and sacrifices other families experience. She said it’s time to “break down [opponents'] assumptions.”

She said she understands people have their opinions, but she also said that voters have to separate themselves emotionally from these issues. “I’m not asking them to be okay with [same-sex marriages], but I’m asking them to be fair.”

She adds that she is also angry about the entire legislative process. A constitution is supposed to protect people’s rights, according to Jennings, rather than change them with just a simple majority vote. “How can people be voting on other people’s basic rights?”

Late Wednesday, San Francisco attorney Dennis Herrera filed a lawsuit requesting the court prevent the action from taking place, but it is unclear what will happen next. Many opponents argue that such a ban is an illegal constitutional revision and only the legislature can make such revisions, not the people.

For people like Jennings, the next steps are very uncertain. Although she is experiencing a lot of hurt and disappointment, Jennings is not backing down. “I want to know if there is an effective way to fight this – that’s what I’m focusing on now.”

BY SWETA VOHRA //

If you heard honking on the streets of El Cerrito today, it probably had little to do with the traffic.

The No on Prop 8 campaign is making last-minute efforts near local polling places on sidewalks and street corners, and many cars are using their horns to voice their support.

“If [the proposition] lost, I didn’t want to think, what if I had gone out? I wanted to give it my all,” said Dr. Susan Kegeles of Berkeley.

Kegeles has been out since early this morning by Hogan’s Garage, a polling place in north El Cerrito, handing out fliers and flashing signs at residents as they head to vote. A professor at the University of California, San Francisco who conducts research on HIV prevention among young gay men, Kegeles said, “Legalizing marriage is a way to show gays and lesbians as equals.”

Joyce Jennings and Sharon Lewis were also out near the United Methodist Church polling station earlier today. Lewis, who has a gay son, said this was the first day she’s done active campaigning and has been impressed with the hard work by the No on Prop 8 campaign. She wanted to do her part today by being out in the community.

Lewis, who came from Canada over 40 years ago, sums up her feelings about this year’s election: “If Obama doesn’t win and Proposition 8 doesn’t pass, I am thinking about moving back to Canada.”

Jennings, a resident of Berkeley, had been up since 5 a.m. campaigning at various sites in El Cerrito and the East Bay. For her, this is a very personal, emotional proposition. Jennings married her partner this past June and if Prop 8 passes, it could potentially dissolve her marriage.

“It’s really scary that it only takes a majority of people to change the constitution, which is supposed to protect our rights,” she said.

Jennings acknowledges that it’s a very emotional issue for people on both sides.

“You don’t have to support same-sex marriage morally but you can also vote no on 8,” she said.  For her, the bigger issue is about changing the constitution to eradicate basic rights.

Jennings said that while many people have been excited by their signs, there have been unpleasant and sheepish reactions. One man, according to Jennings, took a flier, threw it down, and yelled at her.

“Some straight couples have passed by me and won’t even look at me. They just don’t get it,” said Kegeles.

The campaign for No on Prop 8 will continue until the polls close at 7 p.m. today. Many of the supporters plan to be at Unitarian Universalist Church in Kensington tonight, which will have a potluck party and big screen TV to watch the election results.

It’s unclear whether voters will know the results of Prop 8 by tonight, but campaigners are going to fight until the end.

Jennings said, “I’m very nervous, but I’m out here because of it.”

BY N’JERI EATON//

State education budget cuts have forced Castro Elementary School in El Cerrito, like many public schools throughout the state, to do more with less. Despite the loss of hours for librarians, school psychologists, and the elimination of the music program, Castro Elementary continues to thrive and exceed state performance standards. However, if voters decide against the Measure D parcel tax, schools in the West Contra Costa School District will face continued challenges.

A yes vote for Measure D renews the existing parcel tax that was approved by voters on June 8, 2004. The measure seeks to continue the parcel tax for the next five years, ending in June of 2014. If Measure D does not pass, the existing partial tax will expire on June 30, 2009.

If approved, Measure D funds will be used to hire and retain qualified teachers, reduce class sizes and provide after school activities.

A parcel tax feasibility study conducted by the school in March 2008 showed 66 percent of voters supported the measure while 26 percent were against it.

No on Measure D opponents accuse the school district of mismanaging the money from the parcel tax, using if for other expenses like post-employment benefits instead of children’s education. Marilynne Mellander, an outspoken opponent of Measure D, believes that current parcel tax has not had a positive influence on the schools.

“There’s still violence, there’s poor education,” Mellander said. “Throwing any more money at the district will not have any impact.”

According to the staff at Castro Elementary, the money from the current bond measure pays for art programs, band, and after school intervention for students who need more one-on-one time with teachers. Kyle Nelson, a second-grade teacher and head of the site council for the school, said the money for these programs is crucial.

“As much as we can do with any of that, the money comes from this bond measure,” Nelson said.

However, members of the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers don’t want any additional taxes. No on Measure D opponents claim that “people in the district are already the most heavily taxed in the county with six extra taxes already imposed by the district.”

The tax would apply to each parcel of real property in the district. If the parcel has a building on it, the tax would be 7.2 cents per square foot. For example, the tax for a property with a 1,800 square feet would be around $129. If the parcel were vacant, the annual tax would be just $7.20. Senior citizens are exempt from the parcel tax. An exemption form can be found on the school district website.

Although Measure D opponent Mellander is retired, she has not reached the minimum age required for the exemption. She says the parcel tax is a burden on her fixed income. “I don’t see the reason for it, especially in this economic downturn,” she said.

Nelson, who has been teaching for 11 years, believes the tax is an investment in schools.

“We forget, I think, where we are and what we’re doing,” Nelson said. “And 50 bucks a year isn’t a lot of money to be putting towards it.”

However, Mellander is one of a group of citizens who is determined to campaign against the measure.

“We stopped it the last time and we’re going to stop it again and send the board a message,” she said.

Voters will be able to make their decision on November 4. The measure requires two-thirds of voter support in order to pass.

For more information on the proposition, consult your sample ballot or the following links:

Explanation of Measure D

http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/cc/meas/D/

No on Measure D

http://WWW.ACCTaxpayers.com

Parcel Tax Feasibility Report

http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/Fiscal/parcel_tax/WCCUSD-Survey3-08.pdf

Senior Citizen Exemption Form

http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/Fiscal/parcel_tax/sr_exemption_form_0809.pdf

2005-2006 School District Budget Cuts

http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/Fiscal/PDF/cuts030804.pdf