My name is Rick Young, and I am the Berkeley attorney who wrote Measure O, which, had it passed, would have limited the sale of brewed coffee in Berkeley to Fair Trade, shade grown, or organic certified coffee. I am writing to ask you to please consider passing a NEW AND IMPROVED! version of the ordinance. The new version could contain changes that would make Berkeley citizens much more likely to support such a regulation.

First, the penalty could be reduced to a simple infraction, punishable by a fine of up to $100. The penalty in Measure O was a misdemeanor, punishable by up to $100, up to 6 months in jail, or both. The opponents of Measure O put a great deal of emphasis on the possible jail time; in fact, it is worthwhile to note that the opponents of Measure O sent out a mailer that stated "Measure O means six months in jail for a cup of coffee," as if all violations would lead to an automatic six-month jail term. It was misleading statements such as this that led to much of the opposition. With the penalty reduced to a simple infraction, much opposition would be reduced.

Second, enforcement provisions could be much more specific. The NEW AND IMPROVED! version could include language restricting the enforcement to existing health and/or business inspectors and could specifically limit the amount of time and resources spent enforcing the measure, such as inspecting one shop per month. Or, in order to minimize enforcement costs, the City could even skip inspections and simply rely on just reported violations. In fact, because California law allows private citizens to sue businesses that violate the law, the City Council could chose to spend absolutely no time and money on enforcement at all and, instead, simply rely on private citizens to file civil suits. In sum, the City Council could set the level of enforcement and assure Berkeley citizens that the City would be spending a minimal amount of money on enforcement, if any at all, and would certainly not be sending out the police.
The opponents of Measure O misled voters about enforcement as well. Measure O was for the most part silent on enforcement, leaving it up to the City to decide the appropriate means. The image that the opponents displayed in their mailer, complete with ominous black-and-white photographs, suggested that the City would send out "coffee police" to haul away shop owners in handcuffs. The opponents also misled voters about enforcement costs in their mailer when they claimed that Measure O "will end up costing Berkeley more than $100,000 in enforcement costs every year." This was simply not true. The City Attorney stated that enforcement costs are "uncertain and dependent on the level of enforcement and the degree of voluntary compliance." In a report requested by the City Council entitled "Staff Analysis of Coffee Law" dated July 23, 2002, the City Manager reported the same, adding that the "City could chose simply to notify all coffee vendors of the need to comply with the ordinance, perhaps at the time they renew their business licenses, and rely on a complaint-driven enforcement process." The opponents lied: no one in the City government said it would necessarily cost $100,000 every year.

Finally, the third change in the NEW AND IMPROVED! version could limit who would be affected by the law. Under Measure O, the regulation would have applied to all sellers of brewed coffee, from moms-and-pops to the biggest corporations. In the new version, the regulation could be limited only to publicly traded corporations on the grounds that any negative financial impact, if there is in fact any, could be better borne by large corporations rather than by
moms-and-pops.

In sum, the opponents of Measure O did a great disservice to the citizens of Berkeley by publishing seriously misleading information. Had the voters know the truth, I think Measure O would have received more support. If I had relied on the opponents mailer as my only source of information, even I would not have voted for Measure O. Nevertheless, with reduced punishment, more specific enforcement provisions, and limited application - plus anything else that you might suggest - Berkeley citizens will be much more likely to support a NEW AND IMPROVED! coffee regulation.

The plight of coffee farmers continues each day as does the environmental destruction caused by irresponsible farming techniques. Something needs to be done. Berkeley can continue its proud tradition of tackling tough issues in new and progressive ways. I am certain that if a new and improved coffee regulation is passed, Berkeley will start a nation-wide movement that it will look back at with pride. If you would like more information on the coffee crisis, please go to www.geocities.com/coffeelawinfo and then click on Related Coffee Links. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely, Rick Young (510) 666-8464